alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

CERTIFICATION 

I, Kevin J.Cullum, 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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2015-A Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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 amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed 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 onassessment 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 thefollowing unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association 

Date: June 27, 2019 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum

Kevin J. Cullum

President and Chief Executive Officer of

Nissan Motor AcceptanceCorporation

(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)

 
**
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3438 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize 

use of grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative 

and the State Homeland Security Grant Program to 

work in conjunction with a Department of Energy national laboratory. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3438 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Laboratories 

3 Mean National Security Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. USE OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS IN 

5 CONJUNCTION WITH DEPARTMENT OF EN6 ERGY NATIONAL LABORATORIES. 

7 Section 2008(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 

8 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended in the matter pre9 ceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘including by working 

10 in conjunction with a National Laboratory (as defined in 

11 section 2(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 

12 15801(3)),’’ after ‘‘plans,’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 1, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3438 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 

a Department of Energy national laboratory. rity Grant Program to work in conjunction with Security Initiative and the State Homeland Secuauthorize use of grants under the Urban Area
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7731** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ERIC STUDWELL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 4:04

- cr - 00056

- RBS

- FBS

- 1 )

Submitted : October 26, 2012 Decided: November 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Eric Studwell, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Studwell appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for reduction of
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the distri ct court
. See United States v. Studwell , No. 4:04

- cr 00056

- RBS

- FBS

- 1 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 29, 2011; entered Nov. 30, 2011)
. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials bef ore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Rev 0 (9/08) 

## Com ments i n Response to “ Final r ule; r equest for c om ments ”
Docket: FAA - 20 11 - 0014 Directorate Identifier 2010 - CE - 066 -AD Comments have been received in response to : “ Final rule; requ est for comments,” Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. Once you have made your determination, please fill in the com menter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the AD directorate focal. The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we re ceived from: Patrick J. Kremer (Please check on e

) These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change of th is AD. These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory

action. 

### (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual FAA - IR- M - 8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

______Hung V. Nguyen

_____ July 28, 2011

__ Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
H. R. 3608 

One Hundred Thirteenth 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 fourteen 

An Act 

To amend the Act of October 19, 1973, concerning taxable income to members 

of the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grand Portage Band Per Capita 

Adjustment Act’’. 

SEC. 2. EQUAL TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER CAPITA INCOME FOR 

PURPOSES OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. 

Paragraph (4) of section 7 of the Act of October 19, 1973 

(25 U.S.C. 1407(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘pursuant to the agreements of such Band’’ and inserting ‘‘or the Grand Portage Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, or both, pursuant to the agreements of each Band’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

MALLORY YORK, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-433-N 

 § 

TARRANT COUNTY, ET AL., § 

 § 

Defendant. § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. An objection was filed by Plaintiff. The District Court 

reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the 

Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2022. 

____________________________________ 

DAVID C. GODBEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00433-N-BN Document 11 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 49
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40445

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LENNOARD RAY HARE, also known as Leo, also known as Griz , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CV

- 277 USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 97

- 1

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lennoard Ray Hare, federal prisoner # 43938

- 177, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion that challenged his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and pos sess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana. He also seeks to appeal the disposition of his § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

* 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 July 23, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40445 Document: 00515500892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2020No. 19

- 40445

2 Hare asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence found as a resu lt of a traffic stop of a car in which he was a passenger. He maintains that the stop was impermissibly prolonged after the purpose of the stop was resolved and that the continuation of the stop to permit a K

- 9 unit to sweep the car was improper. Hare ar gues that the introduction of the evidence attributable to the illegal search was prejudicial. A COA may issue if a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U .S. 322, 327 (2003). If, as in this case, the district court denied relief on the merits, a prisoner must show that jurists of reason could debate the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues asserted were adequate to de serve encouragement to proceed further. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483

- 84 (2000). Hare has not made the required showing. Accordingly, his motion for a COA is denied. We treat his motion for a COA regarding the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue. See Norman v. Stephens , 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). He has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Cavitt , 550 F.3d 430, 435 , 442 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to that issue. See Norman , 817 F.3d at 234. COA DENIED; AFFIRMED. Case: 19-40445 Document: 00515500892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2020
H. Con. Res. 115 Agreed to July 1, 1993

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Thursday, July 1, 1993, it stand adjourned until noon on Tuesday,

July 13, 1993, or until noon on the second day after Members

are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent

resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, July

1, 1993 or Friday, July 2, 1993, pursuant to a motion made by

the Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon, or until such time

as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in

the motion to recess or adjourn, on Tuesday, July 13, 1993, or

until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority

Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively,

19:25 Jul 07, 1993 VerDate 01-JUL-93 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6655 Sfmt 6501 E:\BILLS\HC115.ENR bend06
H. Con. Res. 115—2

to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

19:25 Jul 07, 1993 VerDate 01-JUL-93 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6655 Sfmt 6501 E:\BILLS\HC115.ENR bend06
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 16 - 00088 - CR STACEY EDWARD LEE FR OST, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 251st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 25,642 - C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding



### June 22 , 2016 ON MOTION TO DISMISS Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Stacey Edward Lee Frost , appealed his conviction for the offense of burglary of a habitation. 1 Appe llant was sentenced to six years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but the sentence of confinement was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for a period of four years. On June 16, 2016 , appellant’s counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 30.02 (West 2011 ).2

Because the motion meets the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), and this Court has not delivered its deci sion prior to receiving it, the motion is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish.
Exhibit  11

                        EXPERT SOFTWARE, INC.

                   COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
                   (In thousands except per share)

<TABLE>
<S>                            <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>



                               Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                 September 30,       September 30,
                                 1997      1996     1997     1996
                                ------   ------    ------   ------
Net income (loss).............. $ 637   $(3,428)   $1,263 $(10,625)
                                ======   ======    ======   ======

Weighted average common stock
outstanding.................... 7,533     7,481     7,518    7,481

Dilutive stock options.........   730        --       541      194
                               -------   ------    ------   ------

Weighted average number of
common stock and common stock
equivalents for primary          
earnings per share............. 8,263     7,481     8,059    7,675   
                               =======   ======    ======   ======

Net income (loss) per share....$ 0.08    $(0.46)   $ 0.16  $ (1.38)
                               =======   ======    ======   ======

</TABLE>




Primary and fully diluted net income (loss) per share are the same for all
periods presented.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 24.1
                               POWERS OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose name appears
below constitutes and appoints Ramzi A. Dabbagh and Richard Heggelund and each
of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for and in his name, place and stead, in any
and all capacities which such person serves or may serve with respect to
Communications Instruments, Inc., to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Communications Instruments, Inc., for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999,
and any or all amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents or any of them, or heir or his substitutes, may lawfully do or casue to
by virtue hereof.

This power of attorney has been signed as of the ____th day of March, 2000, by
the following persons.

/s/  Ramzi A. Dabbagh                       /s/  Richard Heggelund
---------------------------------------     ------------------------------------
Ramzi A. Dabbagh,                           Richard Heggelund,
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive      Chief Financial Officer
Officer and Director

/s/  Michael A. Steinback                   /s/  G. Daniel Taylor
---------------------------------------     ------------------------------------
Michael A. Steinback,                       G. Daniel Taylor,
Chief Operating Officer, President          Executive Vice President of Business
and Director                                Development and Director

/s/  Brian P. Simmons                       /s/  Andrew W. Code
---------------------------------------     ------------------------------------
Brian P. Simmons,                           Andrew W. Code,
Director                                    Director

/s/  Steven R. Brown                        /s/  Jon S. Vesely,
---------------------------------------     ------------------------------------
Steven R. Brown,                            Jon S. Vesely,
Director                                    Director

/s/  Donald Dangott
---------------------------------------
Donald Dangott,
Director
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

OLIVER BATTIE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,

Respondent.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 3:22-CV-0624-X-BT

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 5]. The Magistrate Judge concluded that 

Oliver Battie, Jr.’s “petition is successive” and that the Fifth Circuit must first 

“issue[] an order authorizing this Court to consider Battie’s successive petition” before 

the Court can take any action on it.1

Battie filed objections. First, he contends that his petition alleges “actual 

innocence.”2 But Battie could have raised that argument in his prior petition, so 

that doesn’t negate the successive nature of his petition.3 Second, he contends that 

1

 Doc. No. 5 at 4.

2 Doc. No. 8 at 1.

3 See Hardemon v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 2008) (“[A] petition is successive 

when it . . . raises a claim challenging the petitioner’s conviction or sentence that was or could have 

been raised in an earlier petition.” (cleaned up)).

Case 3:22-cv-00624-X-BT Document 9 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 43
2

his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim wasn’t discoverable because of his “mental 

disabilities that limited and altered his [] reasoning.”4 But the test for 

successiveness hinges on whether the issue in the new petition “could have been 

raised” in earlier proceedings.5 That’s an objective test—not a subjective one—so 

Battie’s subjective mental state isn’t relevant. Even setting that aside, Battie fails 

to argue he was “incapable of consulting with counsel or understanding the 

proceedings against him,” so he hasn’t explained why his ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim was undiscoverable.6

Accordingly, the Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and 

reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for 

plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is TRANSFERRED to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.7

4

 Doc. No. 8 at 2 (asserting that Battie is “bipolar” and has “schizophrenia”).

5 Hardemon, 516 F.3d at 275.

6 Thomas v. Dir., TDCJ-CID, No. 4:09CV644, 2016 WL 4988257, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 

2016), aff’d sub nom. Thomas v. Lumpkin, 995 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2021).

7 See In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997).

Case 3:22-cv-00624-X-BT Document 9 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 44
3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2023.

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00624-X-BT Document 9 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 45
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Amendment No. 1 to this Annual Report of RestorGenex Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David G. Kalergis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | /s/ David G. Kalergis
David G. Kalergis
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
April 29, 2016
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(A) AND 15d-14(A)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, David Johnson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this amendment to the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Alliqua BioMedical, Inc. (the “registrant”);



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



|Date: April 24,
    2019 | By: | /s/ David Johnson                                            
|------------------------ | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |     | David Johnson                                                
|                         |     | Chief Executive Officer                                      
|                         |     | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)