alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bridgecrest Credit Company  OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE  The undersigned hereby certifies that he is a duly authorized officer of Bridgecrest Credit  Company (the “Servicer”), and that as such he is authorized to execute and deliver this certificate  in the name and on behalf of Bridgecrest Credit Company, and certifies that:  1. I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023 and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement; and 2. to the best of my knowledge, based on such review and other than described herein, the Servicer has substantially fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing Agreement for the above referenced period. This certificate is delivered in accordance with Section 2.9 of the Carvana Auto Receivables 2022- P1 Servicing Agreement dated as of March 30, 2022, among Carvana Auto Receivables Trust  2022-P1, Computershare Trust Company, National Association and Bridgecrest Credit Company.  This certificate is dated as of December 31, 2023.  By: _______________________________  Daniel Gaudreau  Chief Financial Officer  /s/ Daniel Gaudreau Exhibit 35.1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00344-CR

Christopher Alan LEMASTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR2869

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 8, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
----

**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Timothy Hart        |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy                Hart            |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer |

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00441-CV

Garrett Bolks and All-Med Industries, Ltd., Appellants

v.

Med-Towel Enterprises, Ltd., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-07-000421, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Garrett Bolks and All-Med Industries, Ltd. and appellee Med-Towel

Enterprises, Ltd. have filed a joint motion to dismiss their appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). 

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: October 30, 2009
# C_2004094EN.01001502.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/15

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 3 March 2004

in Case C-395/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen): Transport Service NV v Belgische Staat and Bea Cars BVBA (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - First and Sixth VAT Directives - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Application of VAT to each production and distribution transaction - Recovery)

(2004/C 94/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-395/02; reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Transport Service NV and Belgische Staat, Bea Cars BVBA, third party — on the interpretation of the principle of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 3 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

The principle of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax does not preclude a Member State from recovering value added tax, after the event, from a taxable person which has wrongly invoiced a supply of goods as being exempt from that tax. It is irrelevant, in that regard, whether the value added tax on the later sale of the goods concerned to the end user has been paid to the public purse or not.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . R. 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30842 Conference Calendar

JOSEPH W. HADWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD STALDER; LINDA RAMSAY; VENETIA MICHAEL; BECKY MOSS; RAY HANSON, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:03-CV-1735

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joseph W. Hadwin, former Louisiana prisoner # 126755, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Hadwin challenged David Wade Correctional Center’s (DWCC’s) Posted Policy # 43, which requires an inmate who is sentenced to isolation to relinquish his mattress and bedding from 5:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Hadwin alleged that thisNo. 05-30842 -2- policy violated his due process rights and his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Policy # 43 did not impose an objectively sufficient deprivation or the “denial of the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities.” Palmer v. Johnson , 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the prison’s implementation of Policy # 43 did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See Novak v. Beto , 453 F.2d 661, 665-66 (5th Cir. 1971). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief on Hadwin’s Eighth Amendment claim. See Talib v. Gilley , 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998). As Policy # 43 does not clearly impinge on the duration of Hadwin’s confinement or constitute atypical punishment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the due process claim as frivolous. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Orellana v. Kyle , 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
#### H. J. Hampton, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. A. Williams, Defendant in Error.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough county; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.

*Maefarlane é Glen,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*F. M. Simonton,*for Defendant in Error.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant takes writ of error. Dismissed by the clerk on praecipe of counsel for the plaintiff in error, under authority of Rule 24.
# C_2004106EN.01004402.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/44

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), Judicial Section, by a judgment of that court of 4 February 2004 in the case of De Groot en Slot Allium B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. against the Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry and the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener: Comité économique agricole régional fruits et légumes de la région Bretagne (CERAFEL)

(Case C-147/04)

(2004/C 106/76)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat (France), Judicial Section, of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of De Groot en Slot Allium B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. v Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry and Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener: Comité économique agricole regional fruits et legumes de la region Bretagne (CERAFEL) – on the following question:

Must the provisions of Directive 70/458 (1) in conjunction with those of Directive 92/33 (2) be interpreted in such a way that it is possible to include in the common catalogue of varieties only varieties of shallots which reproduce without seeds, by vegetative propagation, and, accordingly, could the varieties ‘Matador’ and ‘Ambition’ lawfully be included in the common catalogue in the entry dealing with shallots?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the marketing of vegetable seed (OJ English Special Edition 1970 (III), p. 674).

1

(2)  Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed (OJ L 157 of 10.06.1992, p. 1).

2

---
Exhibit 31.2

              Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
            Securities and Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Richard Cohen, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ABC Funding,
Inc.

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
and

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Dated: May 12, 2006                   By: /s/ Richard Cohen
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Richard Cohen, Chief Financial Officer
                                          ABC Funding, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sheer Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  January 27, 2005





/s/ Doug Berry

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

Doug Berry, President and C.E.O.

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Gary ARCHER, Petitioner, v. Stewart EIDELSON, Ernest Webb, Teamsters Union Local No. 959, Respondents.

No. 5171.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Sept. 12, 1980.

*18Lester W. Miller, Jr., Anchorage, for petitioner.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., BOOCHEVER,* BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice.

*

 This case was submitted to the court for decision prior to Justice Boochever’s resignation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Gary Archer has brought this petition for review from Judge Victor D. Carlson’s denial of a notice of change of judge (peremptory challenge) which was filed against Judge James K. Singleton.

The case was initially assigned to Judge Singleton for motion purposes only. Then, on January 28, 1980, the matter was assigned to Judge Singleton for all purposes including trial. One day later, Archer filed a notice of change of judge. Subsequently, then acting presiding Judge Victor D. Carlson of the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, denied the notice of change of judge on the ground that “the parties have participated in proceedings before the Honorable James. K. Singleton concerning the merits of the action.”1

Archer does not contest that matters involving the merits were heard by Judge Singleton. Rather, he takes the position that this fact alone does not constitute a knowing waiver of his right to challenge Judge Singleton because at the time these proceedings were held he had not been advised that the trial of the case was assigned to Judge Singleton. In *Tunley*v. *Municipality of Anchorage School District,*- P.2d -, at -, Op. No. 2160 at 12 (Alaska, Sept. 12, 1980), we held that a waiver under Alaska Civil Rule 42(c)(4)(i) can be found “only where the requisite participation occurs after the party is informed that the judge before whom he or she is appearing is the judge permanently assigned to hear the case or is assign'-d for trial.”

On the basis of *Tunley,*the superior court’s denial of Archer’s notice of change of judge is Reversed.

CONNOR, J., not participating.

1

. Alaska R.Civ.P. 42(c)(4)(i) provides:

> (4) *Waiver. A*party waives his right to change a particular judge as a matter of right when he knowingly participates before that judge in:

> (i) Any judicial proceeding which concerns the merits of the action and involves the consideration of evidence or of affidavits;

>
# C_2004094EN.01003401.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/34

---

Removal from the register of Case C-52/02 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/81)

By order of 28 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-52/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

---

(1)  OJ C 97 of 20.04.2002.

1

---
SERVED: APRIL 4, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BAER AIR, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0112 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011S0150234) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. ...-···/~--~--·; 

Attachment - Service List 

(.; / / "'····-if-· -J.-....::>-_....._. 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative L~ 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800'Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Baer Air, Inc., Respondent 

William L. Baer, President 

150 South Apollo Boulevard 

Melbourne, FL 32901 

TEL: 973-672-8000 

FAJ<: 973-672-8215 

I 

ONE COPY 

Vincent J. Bennett, Complainant's Counsel 

·Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803 

TEL: 781-238-7044 

FAJ<: 781-238-7055 

Hon. J .E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

· 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAJ<: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-2014-0 i 12 . . 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 87 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 87

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to 
be used on April 21, 2020, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration 
of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical 
preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in

              

 accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may 
prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 4, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 87

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for a ceremony as part of the 
 commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.
```
**Exhibit      32.2**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|  | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,                and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                                       |                                      |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                  |                                 |
| Dated:                November 14, 2007 |                                                                       | /s/ Vincent                Colangelo |
|                                    | Vincent                  ColangeloChief                  Financial Officer |

----
Fiscal Year 2022 

Inspection and Weighing Program 

Revenue Operating 

Expense 

Earnings / 

Loss 

Metric Tons 

National $6,682,986 $3,793,021 $2,889,965 123,745,530 

Field Offices 

Pacific Northwest Field Office $299,411 $414,143 -$114,732 2,720,001 

Toledo Field Office $160,766 $354,073 -$193,307 1,191,938 

New Orleans Field Office $1,348,774 $1,372,632 -$23,858 68,880,711 

League City Field Office $418,581 $665,113 -$246,532 8,335,121 

Export Hourly & Inspection Fees $22,201,047 $27,435,613 -$5,234,566 n/a 

Non-Export Hourly & Inspection Fees1 $654,796 $1,768,453 -$1,113,657 n/a 

Program Total $31,766,362 $35,803,048 -$4,036,686 n/a 

1

Includes revenue and operating expenses for domestic field offices, scale testing programs, registration 

program, and Technology & Science Division. 

Dated: 11/21/2022
#### Co-operative Legislative Committee of Transportation Brotherhoods, Appellant, *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

(No. 31326

Decided August 4, 1948.)

*279*Messrs. Herbert & Dornbey,*for appellant.

*Mr. Hugh 8. Jenkins,*attorney general, and *Mr. Harry G. Fitzgerald, Jr.,*for appellee.

By the Court.

Section 544, General Code, provides:

> “A final order made by the commission shall be reversed, vacated or modified by the Supreme Court on appeal, if upon consideration of the record such court is of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable. ’ ’

By virtue of the concluding paragraph of the, order of October 30, 1947, the Public Utilities Commission not only retained jurisdiction of the citation pending reports by the railroad but for further hearings and orders.

*280No final order having been promulgated by the commission, this proceeding on appeal is dismissed. See *Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission,*146 Ohio St., 228, 65 N. E. (2d), 68.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner', Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.