alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2014

h0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147848

DAVID KIRCHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147848

COA: 314454

Jackson CC: 11-002690-AH

PARNALL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 5, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 31.1  LOGO Certifications I, Daniel Gaudreau, 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 Bridgecrest Lending Auto Securitization Trust
2023-1 (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 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: Computershare Trust Company, National Association.  By:

/s/ Daniel GaudreauName:

Daniel GaudreauTitle:

President, Bridgecrest Auto Funding LLC (senior
officer in charge of securitization) March 27, 2024
================================================================================

                                  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 Zeno,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  period  ended June 30,  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:  November 15, 2004


/s/ Frank McGill
------------------------------
Frank McGill
President, C.E.O. and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2004094EN.01001001.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/10

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

29 January 2004

in Case C-253/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam): S.A. Krüger v Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer, (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 91/439/EEC - Driving licences - Mutual recognition - Compulsory exchange)

(2004/C 94/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-253/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between S.A. Krüger and Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer, on the interpretation of Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1), and of the provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom of movement for persons, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 29 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, under certain circumstances, holders of driving licences issued by another Member State who are established in their territory to exchange that licence for a national driving licence on the ground that a driving licence issued by another Member State which does not comply with the provisions on the period of validity which apply in the host Member State cannot be registered in its registry of driving licences.

It is for the holder of a driving licence issued by a Member State who takes up normal residence in another Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 to prove that he fulfils the conditions set out in the legislation of the host Member State on the renewal of driving licences. However, once that has been proven, it is a matter for the authorities of the host Member State to give due effect thereto and authorise the holder to drive a vehicle under his original driving licence.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

1

---
<TABLE>
                                                             Exhibit 12.1



                             Boston Edison Company
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                         Year ended December 31, 1995
                                (in thousands)


<S>                                                    <C>
Net income from continuing operations                  $112,310

Income taxes                                             66,547

Fixed charges                                           129,576
                                                       --------

     Total                                             $308,433
                                                       ========

Interest expense                                       $119,282
Interest component of rentals                            10,294
                                                       --------

     Total                                             $129,576
                                                       ========


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                         2.38
                                                           ====

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.A.M. and J.M., children

Appellate case number: 01-14-00798-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-00219J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Jane Bland_

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

Date: April 14, 2015
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.11

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

OCTOBER 10, 2001

$98,108.27

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, DUCT UTILITY CONSTRUCTION & TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
(hereinafter called the "Maker"), with offices at 320 Whetstone Alley, Suite B,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, promises to pay to the order of BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE
GROUP, INC. ("Payee"), whose address is 972 Paradrome Street, Cincinnati, OH
45202. Such principal amount shall bear interest from the date hereof until
repayment at the rate of 10% per annum, payable in full 120 DAYS from the date
of this note (as indicated above).

         Maker shall be liable for all expenses including, but not limited to,
reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by Payee in connection with enforcement of
any rights of Payee hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any right hereunder,
and no waiver, consent or agreement in any instance shall adversely effect the
rights of Payee in any other instance.

         All payments of principal and interest hereunder are to be made in
lawful money of the United States of America at the address of the Payee set
fourth above or such other place as the Payee shall designate to the Maker in
writing.

         This note may be prepaid, in whole or in part, without premium or
penalty, at any time and from time to time.

         In the event of (i) nonpayment of any amount due pursuant to this Note
and failure to cure such nonpayment within thirty (30) days after Maker's actual
receipt of written notice thereof, or (ii) the Maker's assignment for the
benefit of creditors, insolvency of any kind, application for, or appointment of
a receiver, filing of a voluntary or involuntary petition under any provision of
the Federal Bankruptcy Code or amendments thereto or any other federal or state
statute affording relief to debtors of, by or against the Maker, then, and in
any of such events, the indebtedness evidenced by this note shall immediately
become due and payable without any further notice of any kind and without being
subject to any set off or counterclaim with respect thereto.

         Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Maker expressly waives demand
and presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest, notice of protest,
notice of dishonor, bringing of suit and diligence on part of the Payee in
taking any action to collect amounts called for hereunder, and shall be directly
and primarily liable for the payment of all sums owing and to be owing hereon.

         This Note shall bind the Maker, its successors, and assigns.

                                  DUCT UTILITY CONSTRUCTION & TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                  By: /S/ RANDALL A. DREW
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Randall A. Drew, CEO
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1205. CHARLES JAMES ABNA v. THE STATE.

On October 21, 2014, Charles Abna was convicted of family violence simple

battery. On November 21, 2014, he filed a notice of appeal. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the

appealable order. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of

appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland

v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Abna filed his notice of

appeal 31 days after entry of the trial court’s order, his appeal is untimely.

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Because Abna is represented by counsel, he is informed of the following in

accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This appeal

has been dismissed because of your counsel’sfailure to file a timely notice of appeal.

If you still wish to appeal, you may request the trial court to grant an out-of-time

appeal. If the trial court grants an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from that

grant in which to instigate an appeal. If the trial court denies your request for an outof-time appeal, you may appeal that denial by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days

of the denial. If you no longer wish to appeal your conviction, you need not do

anything else.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Abna as well as

to Abna’s attorney, who is also directed to send a copy to Abna.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/23/2015

March 23, 2015
Exhibit 32.2 Certificate:



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

OF GRAY PEAKS, INC.



I, the undersigned, being the one of the co-chief executive officers, respectively, of Gray Peaks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his information, knowledge
and belief, that (1) the Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) 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: November 15, 2005



|       |  |                           
|------ |  | --------------------------
|       | 
|       |  | /s/    TIM R. SENSENIG    
|Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer
# C_2004106EN.01005603.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/56

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE FOURTH CHAMBER, EXTENDED COMPOSITION

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE FOURTH CHAMBER, EXTENDED COMPOSITION

19 February 2004

In Joined Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01: SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Public television - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Definition of position by the Commission - Whether aid new or existing - Request for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate - Dispute - Compliance with an annulling judgment - Commission's obligation to make an investigation - Reasonable period)

(2004/C 106/109)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Joined Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01, SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA, established in Carnaxide (Portugal), represented by Mes C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, avocats, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. de Sousa Fialho Lopes and J. Buendía Sierra): Application for a declaration under Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, by failing to adopt a decision in relation to the complaints lodged by the applicant on 30 July 1993, 22 October 1996 and 20 June 1997, against the Portuguese Republic for infringement of Article 87 EC, and by failing, in contravention of Article 232 EC and the principle of sound administration, to take the measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-46/97 [2000] ECR II-2125 and initiate the formal review procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.

1

---
Request for Additional Information - Industrial Aerobotics LLC 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Wolcott:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No.

FAA−2014−0664).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to

process your petition.

•              Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed wing, rotorcraft, lighter than

air) for the proposed UAS operation.  The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including

payload).  This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and

submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to

333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the

information described above by 9/10/2015.  If we do not receive the information, we will close the

docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267‐9677.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521

 

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 9:53 AM 

To: legal@industrialaerobotics.com 

Cc: May, Rick (FAA) 

 

Request for Additional Information - Industrial Aerobotics LLC Page 1 of 1

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note... 8/26/2015
# Print Page

Prepared by the Southeast Milk Market Administrator OfficePage &P of &N
Final China Export Health Certificate

September 30, 2020

Moderator:

Tatiana Jackson, Export Certificate Coordinator

Presenters:

Will Francis, Senior Policy Advisor

MD McWilliams, Export Certificate Coordinator

DairyExportsQuestions@usda.gov
• Today’s presentation is limited to China certificates

• Other questions should be emailed to 

DairyExportsQuestions@usda.gov

• Additional help can be obtained by calling 202-720-3171

• Slides and recording of this presentation will be posted to 

our website 

• Please use the chat box to submit questions on today’s 

presentation

• New certificates will be effective October 13, 2020

Intro
Changes

• Space for 6 Plants allowing 6 product rows for each plant:

• Establishment/License Number:

Entry will auto-populate Producer/Manufacture and Address

• Product Description: 

No more than 15 capital characters with a max of 30 characters 

upper/lower case.

• Production Date –now required for each product

• Validity Date / (Shelf Life) –now required for each product

• Number of Packages:

Column totals will add and must match data entered in Box 5

• Weight:

Column totals will add and must match data entered in Box 5

*consistent measurement units required
Current China 

Certificate

July 6, 2020 to 

October 13, 

2020
Final China 

Certificate

Beginning 

October 13, 

2020
Current Final
Current Final

No changes in Billing Details section
Current

Final

No Changes
Current Final

Biggest changes in Box 5
Current Final

Production Date & Validity Date moved

Product Description 

moved lower

Size and Type no 

longer required

Number of Packages, Total Net Weight, 

Units will be compared to table data below
Current Final
Current

Final
Final

Production date

Validity date
Using the Add buttons

Production date

Validity date
Final
Changes 10/13/2020

• Space for 6 Plants allowing 6 product rows for each plant:

• Establishment/License Number:

Entry will auto-populate Producer/Manufacture and Address

• Product Description: 

No more than 15 capital characters with a max of 30 characters 

upper/lower case.

• Production Date –now required for each product

• Validity Date / (Shelf Life) –now required for each product

• Number of Packages:

Column totals will add and must match data entered in Box 5

• Weight:

Column totals will add and must match data entered in Box 5

*consistent measurement units required
Questions?

Please comment in the chat box or contact us at 

DairyExportsQuestions@usda.gov or

202-720-3171
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial
Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|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: November 13, 2009



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                              
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                  
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial                                        
|Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC(Managing Member)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DONALD STEPHENS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1497

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 13, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

J. Bradford Stetson, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief,

and Jessica DaSilva, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.