alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank P. ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80SA493.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

April 6, 1981.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1981.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Laura E. Udis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Cynthia C. Cederberg, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

The defendant-appellant, Frank P. Romero, appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his post-conviction Crim.P. 35 motion. He argues that he is entitled to be resen-tenced under the 1977 version of the amendatory legislation of H.B. 1589, Colo. Sess.Laws 1977, ch. 216, at 861. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the Governor’s action to delay the effective date of this legislation constituted lawmaking by the executive branch in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and therefore the bill became effective without delay on July 1, 1978. This argument was rejected in *People v. McKenna,*Colo., 611 P.2d 574 (1980), which has consistently been upheld. *E. g., People v. Lopez,*Colo., 624 P.2d 1301 (1981); *People v. Scott,*Colo., 615 P.2d 35 (1980); *People v. Cunningham,*Colo., 614 P.2d 886 (1980); *People v. Foster,*Colo., 615 *661P.2d 652 (1980); *People*v. *Cameron,*Colo., 613 P.2d 1312 (1980); *People v. Triggs,*Colo., 613 P.2d 317 (1980); *People*v. *Warren,*Colo., 612 P.2d 1124 (1980).

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Chief Executive Officer Certification of the QuarterlyFinancial Statements**

 

I,**David J. McIlquham**, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 27, 2005 ofSealy Mattress Corporation (the “Corporation”); 

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Corporation as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.               TheCorporation’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Corporation and have: 

 

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the Corporation, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

 

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Corporation’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theCorporation’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.               TheCorporation’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theCorporation’s auditors and the audit committee of the Corporation’s board of: 

 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Corporation’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Corporation’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date:April 13, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/    DAVID J. MCILQUHAM |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | **David J. McIlquham**                        |
|   | **Chief Executive Officer**                   |
|   | **(Principal Executive Officer)**   |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification





I, David Viney, 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 Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2022-A (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.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing 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 agreement 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 party: Citibank, N.A. as indenture trustee of the issuing entity.





/s/ David VineyDavid VineyVice President and Treasurer (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) of Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., Servicer to Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2022-AMarch 21, 2024
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT








I, Ryan M. Hershberger, certify that:





(a)    A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from September 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 has been made under my supervision.





(b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.








Dated March 20, 2024


/s/ Ryan M. HershbergerRyan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2023-B
•^/Actress; S<^*HoucVxrHS^ 1174963 \3^zoi5 T *5

m

QuDiL Clonk - (MkJ (Xxjyshks nuUnT OFCniivis)#4APPEALS

APR 0 R 2015

%dUJjX* CUT)

J_J AWA€0|fi,GI©rk

Jot

o^hjUl/U^^

ILLb^

~ah

fcB^u^j) -s^JUu^^

f - ' - I / f *" * f] s* ^^^MStUr^Mu.

t^^I^^^
ftji

hUUk

cuts' * ~iM> '

cvvaVd^AsWiVs CriAi//^

^EnW i^l^^ix^

MduA^Xurri

-hU)} C/AyY\

/mti&JL

, —L~- -—. C<^uAt

/^)AJl^^^M)^

'^MM-uU

cr^i>/i>^

cU-^B-

^^^^^^

mo/) Jkmr)
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-31072 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TELLY GALLIEN, Defendant-Appellant (Consolidated with)

No. 04-31075 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

versus TRAVIS GALLIEN, Defendant-Appellant (Consolidated with)

No. 04-31077 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

versus* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
2 SIDNEY GALLIEN, Defendant-Appellant (Consolidated with)

No. 04-31083 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

versus GEORGE CELESTINE, Defendant-Appellant

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:01-CR-60127-5

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this consolidated appeal, George Celestine, Telly Gallien,
Travis Gallien, and Sidney Gallien appeal the denial o f their
motion to dismiss the case against them, which was based on double jeopardy grounds, following a mistrial. The defendants argue that
the prosecution intentionally provoked them into moving for a3

mistrial and that the distric t court erred by misapplying the principles given in Oregon v. Kennedy , 456 U.S. 667 (1982).
The appellants have not shown that the district court’s denial
of their motion to dismiss was erroneous. The district court’s finding t hat the prosecution did not intentionally provoke the
defendants into m oving for a mistrial was not clearly erroneous.

See Kennedy , 456 U.S. at 675-76; United States v. Gonzalez , 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir. 1996). To the contrary, the record strongly
supports the district court’s findings concerning the inadvertence
of the error that led to the mistrial and the parties’ desires, or lack thereof, for the mistrial. Our review of the record and the
district court’s detailed reasons for jud gment also refutes the appellants’ contention that the denial of their motion was grounded in a misapplication of Kennedy

. The appellants have shown no error in the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30394 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

WILLIE BURK JACKSON

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:06

- CR

- 50139

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Willie Burk Jackson

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jackson h a s not filed a response . We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 17, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30394 Document: 00513383999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016No. 15

- 30394

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-30394 Document: 00513383999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
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   In connection with the Annual Report of Lexington Precision Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the President, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigneds knowledge: (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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/Warren Delano Warren Delano President (Co-Principal Executive Officer) April 23, 2009    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  This certification accompanies the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
..••IN COURT OF APPEALS

12!h Cou.1 "ifAppeals Dislrict

CATHY S. LUSK,

RE: Case No. 15-0105 DATE: 4/10/2015

COA #: 12-14-00217-CV TC#: 2013-0254-P-l

STYLE:BARBARA GAIL HARRIS

v. HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD, DECEASED, AND

TRUSTEE UNDER THE WILL OF HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD

Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied the

petition for review in the above-referenced case.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354

TYLER, TX 75702
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 699 

Designating November 25, 2018, as ‘‘Drive Safer Sunday’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2018 

Mr. ISAKSON (for himself, Mr. COONS, and Mr. PERDUE) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating November 25, 2018, as ‘‘Drive Safer Sunday’’. 

Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United States; 

Whereas every individual traveling on roads and highways 

should drive in a safe manner so as to reduce deaths and 

injuries that result from motor vehicle accidents; 

Whereas, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, wearing a seat belt saves as many as 

15,000 lives each year; and 

Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the busiest highway traffic day of the year: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) encourages— 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 699 ATS 

1 (A) high schools, colleges, universities, ad2 ministrators, teachers, primary schools, and 

3 secondary schools to launch campus-wide edu4 cational campaigns to urge students to focus on 

5 safety when driving; 

6 (B) national trucking firms— 

7 (i) to alert employee drivers to be es8 pecially focused on driving safely on the 

9 Sunday after Thanksgiving; and 

10 (ii) to publicize the importance of 

11 driving safely on the Sunday after Thanks12 giving on the Citizens Band Radio Service 

13 and at truck stops across the United 

14 States; 

15 (C) clergies to remind congregations to 

16 travel safely when attending services and gath17 erings; 

18 (D) law enforcement personnel to remind 

19 drivers and passengers to drive safely, particu20 larly on the Sunday after Thanksgiving; 

21 (E) motorists to drive safely during the 

22 holiday season and throughout the rest of the 

23 year; and 

24 (F) the people of the United States— 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 699 ATS 

1 (i) to understand the life-saving im2 portance of wearing a seat belt; and 

3 (ii) to educate themselves about high4 way safety; and 

5 (2) designates November 25, 2018, as ‘‘Drive 

6 Safer Sunday’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 30 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 30

Disapproving the President's proposal to take an action relating to the 
     application of certain sanctions with respect to the Russian 
                              Federation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2019

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
 to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee 
  on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the President's proposal to take an action relating to the 
     application of certain sanctions with respect to the Russian 
                              Federation.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, Congress disapproves of the 
action relating to the application of sanctions imposed with respect to 
the Russian Federation proposed by the President in the report 
submitted to Congress under section 216(a)(1) of the Russia Sanctions 
Review Act of 2017 on December 19, 2018, relating to terminating 
sanctions imposed on En+ Group plc (``En+''), UC Rusal plc (``Rusal''), 
and JSC EuroSibEnergo (``ESE'').
                                 <all>
```
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 53 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require 

that the Supreme Court be composed of not more than nine justices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2019 

Mr. GALLAGHER (for himself and Mr. NORMAN) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to require that the Supreme Court be composed 

of not more than nine justices. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 53 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The Supreme Court shall be composed 

3 of not more than nine justices. 

4 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to 

5 enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24

- 0137 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID WARREN LAMBERT ,

Defendant and Appellant

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 9 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 5 2024

08/05/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0137
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 80 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Approving the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a waiver 
        under section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress approves the 
request for a waiver under

              

 section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code, as submitted by the 
Secretary on December 6, 2019.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 13, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a waiver 
        under section 1703E(f) of title 38, United States Code.
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

d0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140547

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140547 COA: 294862 Wayne CC: 08-006249-FC JAMES TERRELL JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal from the December 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Regulatory Evaluation

DooketNo. FAA- ;tel 0- 0'15't> ;>.010-NM-I~~-,AD

Directorate Identifier: -AD

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

Action I nroneller armliance)

(ll.g.,lnspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs I Number of Total Cost

replacement) (include cost (labor + U.S. for U.S. Fleet

access" testing, (@$8SIh parts) I Registered

and close-un) our) Products

Install In-Line Fuse 13.7 Avg. T.I,O<.)'iO ..

1I $QgJ,Avg. :~;,(.'U0.f)fi 275 $ 0

..

:','. ;'." $ O.DC .'. ': i),GLI $ 0

~U.(l(i .... ;~ {).DO , .' $ 0

S r::. G(j ': 0/'0 I' , $ 0

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compiiance for U.S, iJeet: !G8 Is Not

In i

Table I

--- - --

Costs covered under walTanty $ I

Executh'c Order 12&66: J _

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs tablethat was assumed or might not be obvious, Thufldd can also be Msed to explain warran,y' costs):

YES' 0 NO [8J

"'Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? \~

YES' 0 NO [8J

*Expl.111ation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

eitheruYesorNe answer._

YES 0 NO [8J

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated III Alaska where aviation might be the only mode or transportation? .'

YES' 0 NO [8J

"'Explanation: