alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2015-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, March 31, 2015, to and including December 31, 2015 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, March 31, 2015, to and including December 31, 2015.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 29th day of March, 2016.

 

----

 
| March 29, 2016 |   |               |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------|
|                |   |               |
|                | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis |
|                | Name:  | Brett D. Davis     |
|                | Title: | President          |

 

----
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 of Secured Digital Applications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kelvin Choon-Huat Ng, Chief Accounting 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, to 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/  Kelvin Choon-Huat Ng

Kelvin Choon-Huat Ng
Chief Accounting Officer
May 14, 2008
#### In the Matter of Phillip (Donald) Washington, Petitioner, v Robert Hoke, as Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner’s death renders this proceeding moot insofar as he can no longer be granted his request to annul the determination finding him guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules *(see, Matter of Dean v Tofany,*48 AD2d 964). Furthermore, petitioner’s case does not involve issues likely to evade review or present significant or important questions not previously passed upon; therefore, his claims will not be addressed *(see, Matter of Herald Co. v O’Brien,*149 AD2d 781; *Matter of Boodro v Coughlin,*142 AD2d 820).

Petition dismissed, as moot, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### BOLEN et al. v. KOONS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 23, 1951.

D. G. Boleyn, Hazard, for appellants.

Edward L. Allen, Prestonsburg, for ap-pellees.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

The appellants are the owners of the surface of a tract of land in Floyd County. Their title stems from a title bond executed in 1904 wherein the mineral rights in the property were reserved to the grantor. The title bond provided that the mineral privileges were excepted in the same manner as the Northern Coal & Coke Company had deeds made to it for the oil, gas and mineral, with all' the easements and privileges. There was the further provision that the owner of'the surface was to have the right to use all the coal that he might need for his own domestic use. The Northern Coal & Coke Company deeds provided that it had the right to remove all pillars and other lateral and subjacent supports without' leaving pillars to support the roof or surface. Subsequently, the Standard Elkhorn Coal Company leased some of the coal rights underlying the appellants’1 property and mined coal therefrom for several years. A dispute arose between the Company and the surface owners about timber rights. In the case of Standard Elkhorn Coal Company v. Bolen, 193 Ky. 342, 236 S.W. 241, 242, the rights of the parties under the title bond and a subsequent deed were discussed. During the course of the opinion it was said: “A consideration of the deed in connection with its origin and the previous agreement which it was executed to effectuate leads to the conclusion that its purpose and intent was. to grant to Bolen the title to all of the surface, including the timber, reserving to the Koons heirs the right to enter upon the land and take the coal or other minerals, and to use at that time and for that purpose such timber, not exceeding 12 inches in diameter, as might .be necessary. Any other construction of the exception would be repugnant to the spirit and purpose of the conveyance.”

After the Standard Elkhorn Coal Company ceased operations the appellants began mining some coal. Disputes also arose when the lessees of the appellees started removing the pillars and supports from the old mines. The action was instituted by the appellees to enjoin the appellants from interfering with the mining operations of the lessees and their employees. The appeal is from a judgment upholding the contentions of the appellees.

The appellants have filed no brief, but we are convinced from our examination of the record that the judgment is proper. Therefore, it is affirmed.
Bill Powers

From: PAUL.LINDAHL@ct.spx.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:27 AM

To: bpowers@powersengineering.com

Subject: Nuclear Comparison

Page 1 of 1

6/14/2009

Bill, 

A comparison of wet and ClearSky back to back towers for a reference duty is included in the attached summary. 

 

 

 

Paul Lindahl, LEED AP

Director, Market Development 

SPX Thermal Equipment & Services 

7401 W 129th St 

Overland Park, KS 66213 

TEL 913.664.7588 

MOB 913.522.4254 

paul.lindahl@spx.com 

www.spxcooling.com

www.balcke-duerr.com/

 

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by SPX Corporation for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is 

directed and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from 

your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email so that the sender’s address records can be corrected. 

 

 
Nuclear Plant Retrofit Comparison for Powers Engineering 9-June-2009 

 Case 1A Case 2A Case 1B Case 2B 

Water Salt Salt Fresh Fresh 

Type ClearSky BTB Wet BTB ClearSky BTB Wet BTB 

Cells 3x22=66 3x18=54 3x20=60 3x18=54 

Footprint 3@529x109 3@433x109 3@481x109 3@433x109 

Rough Budget $115.6 million $38.6 $109.1 $36.4 

Basis: 830,000 gpm at 108-88-76. Plume point is assumed at 50 DB/90% RH. 

Low clog film type fill is used for all of the selections, assuming any fresh water used 

would likely be reclaimed water of some sort. Low clog fill has been used successfully 

in various sea water applications. Intake screens would be required for the make-up sea 

water to limit shells, etc. Make-up for the ClearSky tower would be approximately 80-

85% of the wet tower make-up on an annual basis. Budget is tower only, not including 

basins. Infrastructure cost is estimated by some at 3 times the cost of the wet tower, 

including such things as site prep, basins, piping, electrical wiring and controls, etc. Subsurface foundations such as piling can add significantly, and may be necessary for a 

seacoast location. The estimates above are adjusted for premium hardware and 

California seismic requirements, which are a factor in the taller back-to-back (BTB) 

designs both for wet and ClearSky. These are approximate comparisons. Both the wet 

towers and ClearSky towers could likely be optimized more than what has been estimated 

here, and may have to be tailored to actual site space in any event. ClearSky has pump 

head like a wet tower, is piped like a wet tower, and has higher fan power than a wet 

tower to accommodate the increased air flow and pressure drop. 

Coil type wet dry towers would cost significantly more, with premium tube (titanium for 

sea water, and possibly for reclaimed water) and header materials. An appropriate 

plenum mixing design has yet to be developed, but would also require non-corrosive 

materials and high pressure drop on the air side. No coil type BTB wet dry towers are 

likely to be proposed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-11-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 315 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 315

  Designating May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994, as a ``Time for the 
   National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1994

 Mr. Myers of Indiana introduced the following joint resolution; which 
     was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Designating May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994, as a ``Time for the 
   National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II''.

Whereas the brave men and women of the United States of America made tremendous 
        sacrifices during World War II to save the world from tyranny and 
        aggression;
Whereas the winds of freedom and democracy sweeping the globe today spring from 
        the principles for which over four hundred thousand Americans gave their 
        lives in World War II;
Whereas World War II and the events that led up to that war must be understood 
        in order that we may better understand our own times, and more fully 
        appreciate the reasons why eternal vigilance against any form of tyranny 
        is so important;
Whereas the World War II era, as reflected in its family life, industry, and 
        entertainment, was a unique period in American history and epitomized 
        our Nation's philosophy of hard work, courage, and tenacity in the face 
        of adversity;
Whereas, between 1991 and 1995, over nine million American veterans of World War 
        II will be holding reunions and conferences and otherwise commemorating 
        the fiftieth anniversary of various events relating to World War II; and
Whereas June 4, 1994, marks the anniversary of the Battle of Midway, and June 6, 
        1994, marks the anniversary of D-Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That May 30, 1994, through 
June 6, 1994, is designated as a ``Time for the National Observance of 
the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II'', and the President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people 
of the United States to observe that period with appropriate ceremonies 
and activities.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6058

JOSEPH MARLO REDMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY; JOSEPH CURRAN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA01-3410) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Marlo Redman, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Marlo Redman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Redman v. Conroy , No. CA-01- 3410 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Official Journal L 181/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 181 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5720 June 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 181

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5720 June 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation | 1 |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance | 48 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 641/2014 of 16 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy | 74 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation

1

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance

48

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 641/2014 of 16 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy

74

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rita K. Adatto, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 15, 1989, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause and imposing a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

Claimant contends that she did not voluntarily leave her employment because she was orally mistreated and because she believed that she had been fired. She admitted, however, that she never complained to her employer about any mistreatment. The record further reveals that claimant was told to work on a given day, that she failed to do so even though she had said she would, and that when her employer called her she told him she was not coming back. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant left her job because she was dissatisfied with it and that this conduct constituted voluntarily leaving without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, Matter of Rubinstein [Catherwood],*33 AD2d 950). Additionally, the question of whether claimant made a willful misrepresentation to obtain unemployment insurance benefits involved a factual determination and the record reveals no basis for disturbing the *871decision as to this issue *(see, Matter of Ramsey [Ross],*63 AD2d 1061).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAN GYEONG HONG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72068

Agency No. A088-892-215

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Ran Gyeong Hong, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

FEB 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for

substantial evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177

(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Hong does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding that

her asylum application is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,

1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s

opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny her petition as to her asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if Hong suffered

past persecution on account of a protected ground, her presumption of future

persecution was rebutted by a fundamental change in circumstances. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th

Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence supported finding that presumption of future

persecution was rebutted). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

finding that Hong’s fear of problems if she decides to take out a new loan from

loan sharks is too speculative to meet her burden. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d

1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear was “too speculative” under circumstances of

case). Accordingly, Hong’s claim for withholding of removal fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Hong failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured by

2 12-72068
or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to South Korea. See Silaya

v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-72068