alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

Mechanics Bank

Walnut Creek, California

We have examined managements
assertion, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Mechanics Bank (the Bank) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period) for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Bank acts as servicer of automotive retail
installment sales contracts included in private and public securitizations sponsored by the Bank (the Platform), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xiii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv),
for which the Bank has determined are not applicable to the activities performed with respect to the Platform. Appendix B to managements report identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as
constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Banks compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Banks compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Bank processed those selected transactions and performed those servicing
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by the report. Our procedures were not designed to
detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Banks compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2017 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP 
|                      
|Sacramento, California
|March 29, 2018
House Calendar No. 160

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 236

[Report No. 103–510]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay

to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

MAY 18, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 160

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 236

[Report No. 103–510]

Authorizing the 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the

Capitol Grounds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1994

Mr. TRAFICANT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

MAY 18, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be

run through the Capitol Grounds.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 236 RH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL

2 OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY THROUGH CAPITOL

3 GROUNDS.

4 On May 20, 1994, or on such other date as the

5 Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Presi6 dent pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate, the

7 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run through

8 the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special

9 Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olym10 pics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District

11 of Columbia.

12 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

13 The Capitol Police Board shall take such action as

14 may be necessary to carry out section 1.

15 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA16 TIONS.

17 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions

18 for physical preparations for the event authorized by

19 section 1.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2010 (the Report), I, Amit S. Dang, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 filed by the Company 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 on the dates and for the periods presented therein.





HEPALIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: March 31, 2010
     
     By:
     /s/ Amit S. DangAmit S. Dang
President, Chief Executive Officer,Principal Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer




This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.





---
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 231

Expressing the sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable,

ink made from vegetable oil should be used in lithographic printing

for the Federal Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1994

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. DANNER, Mr. MINGE,

Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr.

EMERSON, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. KLUG, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. SHAYS,

Mr. EWING, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. PENNY, and Mr.

GOODLATTE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Government Operations and House

Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent

practicable, ink made from vegetable oil should be used

in lithographic printing for the Federal Government.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Vegetable-based

5 Ink Federal Printing Resolution of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—
2

•HCON 231 IH

1 (1) lithographic ink is used in the majority of

2 documents and other publications printed for the

3 Federal Government;

4 (2) various types of oil, including vegetable and

5 petroleum oil, are used in lithographic ink;

6 (3) greater use of vegetable oil, a renewable ag7 ricultural product, in lithographic ink will—

8 (A) reduce the Nation’s reliance on

9 nonrenewable petroleum resources;

10 (B) improve environmental quality by less11 ening the level of volatile organic compound

12 emissions; and

13 (C) speed the paper recycling process and

14 improve the quality of recycled paper;

15 (4) according to the Public Printer, use of vege16 table-based ink in lithographic printing for the Fed17 eral Government adds little, if any, cost to the Gov18 ernment; and

19 (5) use of vegetable-based ink in lithographic

20 printing for the Federal Government will—

21 (A) enhance the commercial viability of

22 vegetable-based ink and create increased domes23 tic demand for vegetable crops, including an es24 timated 40 million bushels of soybeans;
3

•HCON 231 IH

1 (B) increase the ability of the United

2 States to retain or enlarge its share of the

3 world market for vegetable-based ink; and

4 (C) create incentives for private sector de5 velopment of vegetable-based inks that are of

6 high quality and are cost effective, as well as

7 incentives for private sector development of

8 nonpetroleum cleaning agents for printing

9 presses.

10 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

11 It is the sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent

12 practicable, ink made from vegetable oil should be used

13 in lithographic printing for the Federal Government.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE MARCH
31, 1997 10-QSB OF CSB FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             717
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,183
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     15,698
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         27,551
<ALLOWANCE>                                        147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,996
<DEPOSITS>                                      35,733
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                230
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  47,996
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,076
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  542
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,618
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 812
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 812
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              806
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  39
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    191
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         165
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       165
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   117
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       15
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  147
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               147
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65859-65860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28055]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 98F-1192]


Troy Corp.; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 7B4546) proposing that the food additive regulations be 
amended to provide for the safe use of 3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl 
carbamate as a fungicidal additive for resinous and polymeric coatings 
intended to contact food.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mark A. Hepp, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C 
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of December 24, 1998 (63 FR 71295), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 7B4546) had been filed by Troy Corp. c/o S.L. 
Graham & Associates, 1801 Peachtree Lane, Bowie, MD 20721. The petition 
proposed to amend the food additive regulations in Sec. 175.300 
Resinous and polymeric coatings (21 CFR 175.300) to provide for the 
safe use of 3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl carbamate as a fungicidal additive 
for resinous and polymeric coatings intended to contact food. Troy 
Corp. has now withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future 
filing (21 CFR 171.7).


[[Page 65860]]


    Dated: October 11, 2000.
Alan M. Rulis,
Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 00-28055 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
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.

 July 29, 2014

t0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

149023

HARMONY MONTESSORI CENTER,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 149023

COA: 312856

Michigan Tax Tribunal: 

CITY OF OAK PARK, 00-370214

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2014 

judgment 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.

CAVANAGH, J., not participating due to a familial relationship with counsel of 

record.
Exhibit 31.1




Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function


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









CERTIFICATION






I, Mark Kaczynski, 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 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 review 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:  Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.
  Date:                      June 15, 2016


By:/s/ Mark Kaczynski


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer of


Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


(senior officer in charge of the


servicing function)
#### BOEDEKER v. STATE.

No. 24315.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 23, 1949.

No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*1004KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is rape. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.

The prosecutrix, a girl eleven years of age, made a complete case against appellant ■by her testimony. The only point on which appellant contradicted her testimony was penetration. She testified that he did penetrate her private parts with his male organ which he denied. There is evidence from other witnesses relating to other matters which is not necessary to here state since it has no direct bearing on what took place at the time of the commission of the offense. We deem the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The court, in his charge, clearly and distinctly instructed the jury relative to the law applicable to the case.

No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Count of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 25, 2022

No. 04-22-00227-CV

Kevin HEADY,

Appellant

v.

Julieta HEADY,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-06-37527-MCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due on May 19, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(c). Before the 

due date, court reporter Patricia Salinas advised this court that Appellant has neither requested

the reporter’s record nor paid for the recording of the hearing to be transcribed. 

We order Appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of 

this order that (1) the reporter’s record has been requested and arrangements have been made to 

pay the reporter’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. 

If Appellant fails to respond within the time provided, Appellant must file a brief with 

this court within thirty days after the clerk’s record is filed, and the court will only “consider and 

decide those issues or points [raised in Appellant’s brief] that do not require a reporter’s record 

for a decision.” See id. R. 37.3(c).

If Appellant timely complies with this order, the reporter’s record will be due thirty days 

after Appellant files written proof showing compliance with this order. See id. R. 35.3(c) 

(limiting an extension of time to file the record in a regular appeal to thirty days).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of May, 2022.

_________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28501]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-12-000]


Gregory & Beverly Swecker, Complainants v. Midland Power 
Cooperative, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

November 1, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 30, 2000, Gregory & Beverly Swecker 
(Complainants) filed a complaint against Midland Power Cooperative 
(Respondent). The complainants are requesting the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) to determine Midland Power 
Cooperative's full avoided cost.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before November 20, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the 
complaint shall also be due on or before November 20, 2000. Comments 
and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of 
paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the 
Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28501 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M