alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 4
TO THE
SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.
PARTNER AGENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT




---



##### 



SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.SUA INSURANCE COMPANYBY:
    
    /s/ William S. LoderNAME:
    
    William S. LoderTITLE:
    
    Senior Vice President, Chief Underwriting OfficerAMERICAN PATRIOT INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.BY:
    
    /s/ Lysa SaranNAME:
    
    Lysa SaranTITLE:
    
    PresidentHENDRICKS HOLDING COMPANY, INC.BY:
    
    /s/ Diane HendricksNAME:
    
    Diane HendricksTITLE:
    
    PresidentINSENTIAL, INC.BY:
    
    /s/ Darwin LucasNAME:
    
    Darwin LucasTITLE:
    
    President
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2022-7 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofNovember 22, 2022, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2022-7 and Citibank, N.A. (the “Agreement”) during the periodthat is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: /s/ Marc WomackName: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023By: /s/ Vikas GuptaName: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
Silberstein Ungar, PLLCCPAs and Business Advisors


Phone (248) 203-0080


Fax (248) 281-0940


30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2175


Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4586


www.sucpas.com





March 30, 2011








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Board of Directors


Galaxy Gaming, Inc.


Las Vegas, Nevada





To Whom It May Concern:





Silberstein Ungar, PLLC hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K,Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, filed by Galaxy Gaming, Inc. of our report dated March 21, 2011, relating to the financial statements of Galaxy Gaming, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, as of and for the periods ending December 31, 2010 and 2009.





Sincerely,





/s/ Silberstein Ungar, PLLC





Silberstein Ungar, PLLC





Bingham Farms, Michigan
Exhibit 31.1GLOBALCASH ACCESS, INC.CERTIFICATION     I, Kirk E. Sanford, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Global Cash Access, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Dated: August 11, 2005 By: /s/ Kirk E. Sanford             Kirk E. Sanford
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vernon A. Ninham, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant was prop*1044erly advised of his *Miranda*warnings *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436) and knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights before giving a statement to the police. We further conclude that the court properly imposed a consecutive sentence on defendant’s conviction for burglary in the third degree. The burglary conviction involved acts which were separate and distinct from those involved in the remaining convictions *(see, People v Brathwaite,*63 NY2d 839). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTURO JHOHARY GUTIERREZVARGAS,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72047

Agency No. A200-690-635

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2019** 

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Arturo Jhohary Gutierrez-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

FILED

AUG 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition. 

Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law

that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but

we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of governing statutes and regulations,

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827

F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). 

The BIA did not err in finding that Gutierrez-Vargas has not established

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-GV-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Gutierrez-Vargas has not established that

persons returning to Mexico from the United States who have assimilated to the

culture would be perceived by society as a particular social group. See DelgadoOrtiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (returnees from the United

States to Mexico is not a particular social group). Thus, Gutierrez-Vargas’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The record

does not compel the conclusion that Gutierrez-Vargas is “more likely than not” to

2
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he returns

to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040,

1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Gutierrez-Vargas’s CAT claim also fails. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

3
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

ACause Number: 01-14-00207-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 2013-45235A

Style:

Ellen Lumenta, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Revelino 

Nawawi, Deceased

v Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Bell Helicopter Korea Inc., Bell Helicopter Corporation, 

Bell Helicopter International Inc., Bell Helicopter International Sales Corporation, Pratt & 

Whitney and United Technologies Corporation

Date motion filed*: April 3, 2015

Type of motion:

Motion for Leave to File Motion to Include in the Record the Deposition of Harold 

Barrentine and the Record of the Hearing Transcript of December 16, 2013 Hearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Motion

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of 

Date: April 14, 2015
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION
Now that the farm Bill has passed it creates new growth opportunities for the farming industry.  It would be a shame to see companies like Monsanto control the seeds that are used in the cultivation process.  With the average age of U.S. farmers at 60 years old, how will we get younger farmers involved in the future of this industry?

Kyla Hempresshill Hill

Hemp and CBD Consultant
Agricultural G-93 Specification

Marketing July 8, 2020

Service

Quality Assessment Division 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 

Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Elkhorn Valley Packing EVP Angus Beef Program

G-93 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Phenotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live Animal

Specification;

b. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1;

1

2

3

4

c. U.S. Select and have a marbling score of Slight 00 to Slight 99 ;

d. Lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for A maturity in the U.S. grade it

qualifies for1;

e. Medium or fine marbling texture1, ;

f. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in

relation to their length ;

g. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height ;

h. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle;

and

i. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures.

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Evaluated using the USDA-AMS-LS-SB-02 Marbling Texture card (included in the Official USDA Marbling Photographs.) 3 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

4 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural G-93 Specification

Marketing July 8, 2020

Service

Quality Assessment Division 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 

Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service. 

___________________________________ 

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor 

Standards and Specifications Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Lisa Rodriguez v. Universal Surgical Assistants, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00236-CV

Trial court case number: 18-DCV-2580-12

Trial court: 458th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Lisa Rodriguez, has filed an unopposed motion to stay the appeal 

“pending the completion of the procedure under Rule 4.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure” and “direct that the brief of appellant shall be due within ten days after the 

filing of a supplemental clerk’s record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2; see also TEX. R. CIV. P.

306a(4), (5). The motion is granted in part and dismissed in part.

Appellant is directed to cause the trial court clerk to prepare and file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s order or any additional 

documents, as appropriate, or advise the Court of the status of the trial court proceedings 

no later than 30 days from the date of this order. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The Court will set a due date for appellant’s brief when the case is 

reinstated on the Court’s active docket. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___May 7, 2019_
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the quarter ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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: May 17, 2010



By:

/s/ Kenneth StastnyKenneth StastnyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this
written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.
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 Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tony D. Whitaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/Tony D. WhitakerTony D. WhitakerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



May 16, 2011
# hdwhglb_UNS
# HSCVTEMP_UNS
ATTACHMENT B



### PROPOSED 15-DAY MODIFICATIONS TO THE

PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER FOR THE

CALIFORNIA ZERO EMISSION VECHICLE REGULATIONS

Amend, adopt or repeal the following sections of ti tle 13, California Code of Regulations, to read as set forth in the following pages:



### Amend:

Section 1962 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 20 05 through 2008 Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles

Test Procedure : 2005 through 2008 Model

Years California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2005 through 2008 Model Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in thePassenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and MediumDuty Vehicle Classes 

### Adopt:

Section 1962.1 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 2009 andSubsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, LightDuty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles

Test Procedure: 2009 and Subsequent

Model Years California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in thePassenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and MediumDuty Vehicle Classes

Note: The proposed amendments to section 1962 and i ncorporated 2005-2008 model-year test procedure, presented to the Board o n March 27, 2008, are shown in single underline to indicate additions and single strikeout to indicate deletions. At the March 27 meeting, the B oard directed staff to make modifications to the proposed amendments. The modifications to

the amendments are shown in double underline to indicate additions and

double strikeout to indicate deletions.

The proposed new section 1962.1 and incorporated 2 009 and subsequent model-year test procedure, presented to the Board o n March 27, 2008, are shown without underline as permitted by Califor nia Code of Regulations, title 1, section 8. Modifications to the amendments are shown in single underline to indicate additions and single strikeout to
indicate deletions.
Inspection and Weighing Program Obligations by Office for F

Obligation Categories 2

Salary and 

Benefits Travel

Shipping 

and 

Moving 

Expenses

Rent and 

Utilities Printing

Other 

Services

Supplies 

and 

Materials Equipment

Insu

C

FGIS Deputy Admin $ 1,149,857 $ 22,171 $ - $ - $ 755 $ 503,940 $ 797 $ - $ 

Field Management Div $ 768,588 $ 18,603 $ 4,009 $ 7,617 $ - $ (160,217) $ 208 $ - $ 

Quality Assurance Div $ 26,993 $ - $ - $ - $ 302 $ - $ - $ - $ 

Master Scale Depot $ 242,767 $ 15,183 $ - $ 14,735 $ - $ 12,083 $ 23,048 $ 3,574 $ 

New Orleans $ 16,080,301 $ 164,041 $ (3,509) $ 458,328 $ - $ 10,296 $ 273,817 $ 951 $ 

Domestic $ 453,120 $ 17,965 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,689 $ 2,077 $ - $ 

Tech & Science Div $ 426,547 $ - $ - $ 2,313 $ - $ 56,560 $ 32,978 $ - $ 

Toledo $ 1,858,101 $ 90,623 $ 51,525 $ 114,793 $ - $ 15,912 $ 54,872 $ 1,026 $ 

Portland $ 2,900,540 $ 22,183 $ 2,835 $ 200,816 $ - $ 94,933 $ 159,016 $ 678 $ 

League City $ 6,579,994 $ 270,787 $ 17,931 $ 210,246 $ - $ 8,542 $ 67,269 $ 14,522 $ 

Olympia $ 17,949 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

Overhead 1 $ 17,603 $ (481) $ 457 $ 170,405 $ 50,373 $ 4,090,888 $ 1,775 $ - $ 

TOTAL $ 30,522,358 $ 621,075 $ 73,249 $ 1,179,252 $ 51,430 $ 4,634,625 $ 615,856 $ 20,752 $ 

1 Overhead includes AMS Overhead obligations, Departmental Charges (Central Charges & Greenbook), and prior year ov2 FY21 $2.471 million of obligations reimbursed with CARES Act funding.Dated: 11/22/2021
H. J. Res. 80 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

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. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50244

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL LEONEL FOURNIER-ROBLES, also known as Raul Leonel Fournier,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-1563-3

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Leonel Fournier-Robles (Fournier) appeals his guilty plea 

conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise for which he was 

sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court 

violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) by improperly 

participating in his plea negotiations.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50244 Document: 00512998136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 13-50244

Because Fournier did not object on this basis in the district court, this 

court reviews for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 

(2002); see also United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2148-50 (2013) 

(rejecting contention that improper participation in plea discussions under 

Rule 11 requires automatic vacatur rather than analysis under the ordinary 

harmless and plain error standards). Fournier must show error that is clear 

or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 

U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion 

to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. 

Fournier fails to show that any discussions among the district court, his

first trial attorney, and the attorney for the Government occurred during plea 

negotiations rather than after a plea agreement had been negotiated by the 

parties and disclosed to the district court. See United States v. Hemphill, 748 

F.3d 666, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that a district court may properly 

discuss and evaluate a plea agreement once it has been disclosed by the 

parties). Nor does Fournier show that the district court’s inquiry whether his 

second trial attorney intended to adhere to the already-negotiated plea 

agreement was improper. See id. Fournier fails to show error, much less clear 

or obvious error, by the district court. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50244 Document: 00512998136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015