alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 35.2**

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

​

I, Steven N. Owenson, Senior Vice President and Finance Director of Deere Credit Services, Inc., state:

​

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from October 30, 2023 through October 27, 2024 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 28, 2023 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables LLC and John Deere Owner Trust 2023-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

​

​

​

| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |
|------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 10, 2025 | Deere Credit Services, Inc. |
| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |
| ​                | By:                         | */s/ Steven N. Owenson*                    |
| ​                | ​                     | Steven N. Owenson                          |
| ​                | ​                     | Senior Vice President and Finance Director |
| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |
| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |

​

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 21839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8907]



[[Page 21837]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 70

April 11, 2012

Part II





The President





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Notice of April 10, 2012--Continuation of the National Emergency With 
Respect to Somalia


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 21839]]

                Notice of April 10, 2012

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Somalia

                On April 12, 2010, by Executive Order 13536, I declared 
                a national emergency pursuant to the International 
                Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to 
                deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security and foreign policy of the United 
                States constituted by the fragile security situation 
                and the persistence of violence in Somalia, and acts of 
                piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of 
                Somalia, which have repeatedly been the subject of 
                United Nations Security Council resolutions, and 
                violations of the Somalia arms embargo imposed by the 
                United Nations Security Council.

                Because the situation with respect to Somalia continues 
                to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security and foreign policy of the United 
                States, the national emergency declared on April 12, 
                2010, and the measures adopted on that date to deal 
                with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond 
                April 12, 2012. Therefore, in accordance with section 
                202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 
                1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national 
                emergency declared in Executive Order 13536.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    April 10, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-8907
Filed 4-10-12; 2:15 pm]
Billing code 3295-F2-P
**
**Exhibit 24.2**

LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY 

FOR

HASSELL H. MCCLELLAN 

FORM 10-K FOR THE MANULIFE PRIVATE CREDIT FUND 

FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2023 

The undersigned, a Trustee of the Manulife Private Credit Fund, hereby constitutes and appoints with full power of substitution each of Edward Macdonald,David Pemstein, Betsy Anne Seel, Mara Moldwin, Christopher Sechler, Daniel Beauregard, Sarah Coutu, Thomas Dee, Khimmara Greer, Kinga Kapuscinski, Nicholas J. Kolokithas, Mara Moldwin, Harsha Pulluru, Steven Sunnerberg, and Suzanne Cartledge actingsingly, the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact to: 

(1) Execute for the undersigned as Trustee of the Manulife Private Credit Fund (the “Fund”) the annual report for the Fund for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2023 on Form 10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Form 10-K”);

(2) File the Form 10-K, with all exhibits and any and all documents required to be filed with respectthereto, with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and any stock exchange or similar authority; and 

(3) Take any other action which, in the opinion of suchattorney-in-fact, may be necessary or desirable in connection with the foregoing. 

The undersigned acknowledges that none of the foregoing attorneys-in-fact areassuming the undersigned’s responsibilities to comply with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder. 

ThisPower of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact. ThisPower of Attorney may be filed with the SEC as may be necessary or appropriate. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney tobe executed as of this 23rd day of February, 2024. 

 

/s/ Hassell H. McClellan

Name: Hassell H. McClellan

Title: Trustee

 
**
January 31, 2012



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RAFAEL LIMAS PENA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 00740

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified below for

observan ce.
EX-10.14





 Exhibit 10.14 

CERTAIN IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE 

EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH NOT MATERIAL AND IS THE TYPE THAT THE 

REGISTRANT TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. SUCH EXCLUDED 

INFORMATION HAS BEEN MARKED WITH “[***].” 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO

 DATA SERVICES AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 

Reference is made to the Data Services and License Agreement (the “Agreement”), effective as of January 26, 2022, by and
between Life360, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Life360”), and Placer Labs Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Placer”). Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as in the Agreement. 

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DATA SERVICES AND LICENSE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into by and between the parties as
of May         , 2022. 
 WHEREAS: The parties have been operating under the Agreement, and
now desire to amend and modify certain provisions therein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE: Notwithstanding any other provisions in the Agreement, the
parties agree, and the Agreement is accordingly amended and modified, as follows: 
 1. Section 2(f) of Attachment A of the Agreement is
amended to add the following sub-sections (ii) and (iii): 
 [***] 

[***] 
 2. In the event of any
conflict between the Agreement and this Amendment, the provisions in this Amendment shall control. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

3. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, without reference to conflicts
of laws principles that would require the application of the laws of a different jurisdiction. 
 4. This Amendment may be executed in
counterparts, each of which will be considered an original and all of which together will constitute the same instrument, and may be executed by facsimile or electronic signature. 













			
	“Placer”	  	“Life360”
		
		  	
	Placer Labs Inc.	  	Life360, Inc.
		
		  	
	By: /s/ Noam
Ben-Zvi                                   
 	  	By: /s/ Itamar
Novick                                    
	Name: Noam Ben-Zvi	  	Name: Itamar Novick
	Title: CEO	  	Title: Chief Business Officer


  
 2
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-15-0000193 

08-APR-2015 

12:41 PM 

SCPW-15-0000193
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

LILY TAI NOMURA, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL K. TANIGAWA, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT


COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent Judge,
 

and
 

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF CENTURY CENTER, INC., DANNY


ROBERTS; MICHAEL SPENCER; SAMANTHA COOK; ALETTA FLEISCHINGER;


KAYLA FERNANDEZ; KAYCEE HABAN; ALIX LUNSFORD; HANS BRODO; LILY


LUM; CHRISTOPHER SCHULTE; LYLE NAM PAK; TOM SALT; LOGAN CROWLEY;


ERIN BARASKY; JOHN DOES 1-50; and JANE DOES 1-50, Respondents.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CIV. NO. 1RC14-1-7636)
 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of Petitioner Lily Tai Nomura’s
 

petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on March 23, 2015, the
 

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
 

the record, it appears that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that
 

the respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
 

discretion in denying her “Motion to Set Bond for a Stay Pending
 

Appeal.” If an appeal is filed in the underlying proceeding,
 
Petitioner may seek relief in the district court or in the 

Intermediate Court of Appeal, as appropriate. Petitioner is not 

entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 

200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is 

an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner 

demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack 

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or 

obtain the requested action; where a court has discretion to act, 

mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise 

of that discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, 

unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has 

committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has 

refused to act on a subject properly before the court under 

circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty to act); 

Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 

58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede 

the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a 

mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal 

appellate procedure). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

mandamus is denied. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 8, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
 

2
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SENECA GAMING CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS**

(Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Seneca Gaming Corporation,or SGC, on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission, we, Brian Hansberry, Interim Presidentand Chief Executive Officer, and Patrick M. Fox, Chief Financial Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                      The Quarterly Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended,; and

2.                                      The information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of SGC as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form10-Q.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to SGC and will be retained by SGC and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

August 14, 2007
| /s/ E. Brian Hansberry                        |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| E. Brian Hansberry                            |   |
| Interim President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                 |   |
|                                          |   |
|                                          |   |
| /s/ Patrick M. Fox                            |   |
| Patrick M. Fox                                |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                       |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                 |   |

 

Theforgoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of SGC, whethermade before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

----
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-4  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  The Bank of New York Mellon.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 4, 2024
Equipment Operator Activitiy Process Ref. Part II, Section A. 1(d) NCS TS-10KK7G MANUFACTURING 

## Redacted
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0562 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-038-AD

Helicopter Model: Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Model F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28F, 280C, 280F, 

280FX, TH-28, 480, and 480B Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 207 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These actions in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the cyclic trim system and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $327 for Models 480, 480B, and TH-28

$383 for Models 280C, 280F, 280FX, F-28C, F28C-2, and F-28F

Labor per Helicopter

(8 x $85/work-hour for the 

modification)

$680

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $1,007 for Models 480, 480B, and TH-28

$1,063 for Models 280C, 280F, 280FX, F-28C, F28C-2, and F-28F

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gregory J. Michalik
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20953 Summary Calendar

KENNETH RANDALL WITHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES COLLINS, et al., Defendants, JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JOHNNY KLEVENHAGEN, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-94-2739

- - - - - - - - - - July 17, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Randall Withers, #687233, appeals from the districtcourt’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendantsappellees. Withers contends that the district court erred by failing to certify a class of Texas inmates who had been “warehoused” in county jails, which allegedly provide services,No. 95-20953 - 2 - programs, and privileges that are inferior to prisons operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order granting the summary-judgment motions, and Withers’ arguments on appeal. We find no reversible error. Withers has filed with this court numerous motions and “requests” in an effort to litigate claims, not raised in the district court, that TDCJ officials are retaliating against him. Because Withers may not raise these claims for the first time on appeal, see Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), those motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04331A011
# C_2004118EN.01000302.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-277/00: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Decision 2000/567/EC - Aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH of Frankfurt an der Oder (Brandenburg) - Article 88(2) EC - Right to be heard - Compatibility with the common market - Article 87(1) EC - Recovery of illegal aid - Recovery from undertakings other than the original beneficiary)

(2004/C 118/06)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-277/00: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Schütte) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and V. Di Bucci), with an address for service in Luxembourg, – application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/567/EC of 11 April 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH of Frankfurt an der Oder (Brandenburg) (OJ 2000 L 238, p. 50) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Commission Decision 2000/567/EC of 11 April 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH of Frankfurt an der Oder (Brandenburg) is annulled in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid granted to System Mikroelektronik Innovation GmbH from other undertakings and of the aid granted to Silicium Mikroelektronik Integration GmbH from other undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Decision 2000/567/EC of 11 April 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH of Frankfurt an der Oder (Brandenburg) is annulled in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid granted to System Mikroelektronik Innovation GmbH from other undertakings and of the aid granted to Silicium Mikroelektronik Integration GmbH from other undertakings.

| 2. | The remainder of the application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the application is dismissed.

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities are each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities are each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.

1

---
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-14-00098-CV

In re Estate of June Elaine Gibson, Deceased

(No. 2013-148P IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF RUSK COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51 FEE

FILING

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

$10.00

$50.00

$100.00

$25.00

$20.00

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

ROBERT M. MINTON

ROBERT M. MINTON

ROBERT M. MINTON

ROBERT M. MINTON

ROBERT M. MINTON

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

April 9, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy