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

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
August 7, 2013 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2013-4 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the
closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |  |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  |  |  | Dated: March 30, 2015
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |  |  |
#### Donald HUFFMAN v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 85-190

704 S.W.2d 627

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 10, 1986

*Edwin J. Alford,*for appellant.

*Sieve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Jerome T. Kearney,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

On November 15,1984, the appellant was charged with having committed rape on or about January 15, 1984, by engaging in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with a girl under the age of eleven. The jury found him guilty and imposed a 35-year sentence. There is no merit in his three arguments for reversal.

*322It is first contended that the appellant’s signed confession was involuntary and should not have been received in evidence. At the suppression hearing the appellant testified that the police officers compelled him to sign the statement, which he said was not true. The State presented convincing proof to the contrary. The officers testified that Huffman had not wanted to make a statement when he was arrested, but after three or four days he said he wanted to see the sheriff and make a statement. According to the officers, Huffman made the statement voluntarily. At the hearing Huffman admitted the truth of parts of the statement, relating to his childhood and his first job. His description of the criminal incident was the same as that given by the child in her testimony at the trial. We have reviewed the testimony taken at the suppression hearing and find that the statement was voluntarily made.

A second argument is that the court should have granted a continuance when, just before the trial began, the State was allowed to amend the information to allege that the crime occurred between November 1,1983, and January 15,1984. No prejudice resulted from the court’s action. In a case of this kind the particular time is not an ingredient of the offense; so the amendment was permissible. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1015 (Repl. 1977); *Scoggins v. State,*258 Ark. 749, 528 S.W.2d 641 (1975). The prosecutrix testified that there was intercourse both before and after Christmas (1983). In view of the statute making a variance in time immaterial, we fail to see how the defense was affected by the amendment.

A third argument is that the State’s proof was insufficient, but the appellant concedes that if the confession was admissible, as we hold it to have been, this point is not well taken.

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00608]



[[Page 2183]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--MLCommons Association

    Notice is hereby given that on December 3, 2021 pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Section 4301 et seq. (the ``Act''), MLCommons Association 
(``MLCommons'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Femtosense, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Sebastian Magierowski 
(individual member), Toronto, CANADA; Oana Balmau (individual member), 
Montreal, CANADA; Jeffrey Mao (individual member), Union City, CA; 
Maxwell Labs Inc, New Hope, MN; Anh Nguyen (individual member), Munich, 
GERMANY; Runa Eschenhagen (individual member), Tubingen, GERMANY; 
Siliconeuro, Inc., San Jose, CA; Deci.ai, Ramat Gan, ISRAEL; Deep AI 
Technologies, Caesarea, ISRAEL; Telecommunications Technology 
Association (TTA), Seongnam-City, SOUTH KOREA; and Arun Tejusve 
Raghunath Rajan (individual member), San Jose, CA have joined as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open and MLCommons intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 15, 2020, MLCommons filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on September 29, 2020 (85 FR 61032).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
23, 2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 22, 2021 (86 FR 58689).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-00608 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-6088

RONALD DION BOYD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CR-97-417-A)

Submitted: May 31, 2000

Decided: June 27, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald Dion Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Amanda L. Eller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Boyd appeals the district court's order denying his motion

to correct an illegal sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We affirm

substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States

v. Boyd, No. CR-97-417-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 1999). To the extent

that Boyd challenged his sentence, his motion should have been construed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Even if Boyd's

motion were construed as a § 2255 motion, however, it would be

untimely filed. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(1). To the extent that Boyd

challenged his sentence as executed, his motion should have been

construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Even if Boyd's filing was

construed as a § 2241 motion, however, we find he is not entitled to

relief. Boyd's claim that he should receive credit towards his federal

sentence for time served in a federal facility is not properly before us

because Boyd has not yet begun to serve that sentence. As for the

remainder of Boyd's claims that should be asserted under § 2241, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

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. We deny Boyd's "Motion for Expedited Appeal" as moot.

AFFIRMED

 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 Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Fletcher,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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/William Fletcher
   -----------------------
   William Fletcher
   Chief Financial Officer

August 5, 2003
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1791-1792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00443]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permit Modification Issued Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit modification issued.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 3, 2021, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
modification request received. The permit modification was issued on 
January 3, 2022, to:

[[Page 1792]]

Permit No. 2018-025

Allison Kean, Quark Expeditions Inc.

Erika N. Davis,
Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2022-00443 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ WILLIE STEPHENS, JR., Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________
2012-7157

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 12-1173, Judge Lawrence B. Hagel.

__________________________ Before N EWMAN , P ROST , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R Willie Stephens, Jr. appeals from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims(Veterans Court) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We summarily affirm. Mr. Stephens is currently receiving Department ofVeterans Affairs (DVA) disability benefits for his serviceconnected claim for residuals of prostate cancer. In June Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/26/2012WILLIE STEPHENS v. SHINSEKI 2 2011, the DVA advised Mr. Stephens that because his condition had shown improvement, his disability rating was being reduced from 100% to 10%.In March 2012, Mr. Stephens filed the underlying petition with the Veterans Court. He attached a copy of a February 2012 letter he sent to the DVA asserting that he filed a notice of disagreement with regard to a June 2011 DVA notification letter. His petition asked the Veterans Court to order the DVA to issue a statement of the case. According to Mr. Stephens, the DVA’s delay in issuing him a statement of the case was “disturbing and delaying” his appeal. In denying the petition, the Veterans Court noted that that he “has not demonstrated that the delay in his case is unreasonable.” This appeal followed. This court reviews the denial of a petition for a writ ofmandamus by the Veterans Court for an abuse of discretion. Lamb v. Principi , 284 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and should not be issued unless the petitioner has no other adequate alternative means to attain the desiredrelief and petitioner has established a clear and undisputable right to relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C. , 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
The Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Stephens failed to satisfy the exacting standard for mandamus relief. The Veterans Court was reasonable in concluding that any delay in the DVA’sissuance of a statement of the case was not so unreasonable that it was equivalent to an arbitrary refusal by the DVA to act. Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 12/26/2012WILLIE STEPHENS v. SHINSEKI 3 (1) The judgment of the Veterans Court is summarily affirmed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s26 Case: 12-7157 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 12/26/2012
Order No.: 481691660

Sold To: DON JOHNSON

MAINEHDTV

2 SHORE RD

BIDDEFORD, ME 04005

Bill Phone: (207)710-7151

Invoice Date

04/30/14

Customer Code

44889020

Terms

 

Order Date

04/13/14

Purchase Order Number Salesperson

 2KL

Ship Via

STANDARD

Qty Ord Qty Ship Qty Bko Item Description SKU#/MFR# Item Price Amount

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DJI PHANTOM 2 KIT W/O GOPRO CAM W/IOSD/WHE 

This Is A Special Order Item, And Is Not Returnable.

This Is A Special Order Item, And Is Not Returnable.

CONSISTS OF:

 DJI PHANTOM 2 .00 

 DJI GIMBAL FOR PHANTOM 2 .00 

 DJI 5.8GHZ VIDEO KIT .00 

 DJI IOSD MINI - ON SCREEN DISPLAY .00 

 TOTE 5.6" LCD FIELD MONITOR .00 

 DJI PHANTON 2 VISION BATTERY .00 

 B&H-PHOTO PHANTOM2 GIMBAL & 5.8 VIDEO .00 

SERIAL #:

SERIAL #:

SERIAL #:

SERIAL #:

BB091149328837

BA261422043021

BC231204212111

BD040838158131

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

2KL

2KL

2KL

2KL

2KL

2KL

2KL

2KL

DJP2K2 1,822.50 1,822.50

Continued on Next Page ...

BNH_invoice-REPRINTCustomer Copy Page 1 of 2
Order No.: 481691660

Sold To: DON JOHNSON

MAINEHDTV

2 SHORE RD

BIDDEFORD, ME 04005

Bill Phone: (207)710-7151

Invoice Date

04/30/14

Customer Code

44889020

Terms

 

Order Date

04/13/14

Purchase Order Number Salesperson

 2KL

Ship Via

STANDARD

Qty Ord Qty Ship Qty Bko Item Description SKU#/MFR# Item Price Amount

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE NOTE: ------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************** 

Buy online at BandH.com and Pick Up at NYC Super Store 

Please visit us at www.bandh.com/NYCSuperStore 

 WATSON AA NIMH 2300MAH BATT(4) W/4 HO .00 

 HPRC WHEELD HRD CS/FOAM/DJI PHANTM VI .00 

 DJI REPLACEMENT 20W BATTERY CHARGER .00 

 WATSON 2200MAH 3S 11.1V 20C LIPO RC B .00 

 PEARSTONE BNC MALE-RCA FEMALE NICKEL .00 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

Salesperson Code: 

2KL

2KL

2KL

2KL

2KL

Payment Type Card/Check Number Amount

VISA CARD 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

************1446 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 1,822.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sub-Total: $1,822.50

Total Order: $1,822.50

Total Payment: $1,822.50

Balance: $.00

BNH_invoice-REPRINTCustomer Copy Page 2 of 2
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 2 of 18 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 3 of 18 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 4 of 18 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 5 of 18 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 6 of 18 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 7 of 18 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 8 of 18 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 9 of 18 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 10 of 18 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 11 of 18 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 12 of 18 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 13 of 18 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 14 of 18 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 15 of 18 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 16 of 18 PAGEID #: 18
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 17 of 18 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 2:17-mj-00739-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 18 of 18 PAGEID #: 20
#### Terbieten *v.*Columbia Scale Company.

4-2641

Opinion delivered July 11, 1932.

*Boy Gean*and *G. L. Grant,*for appellant.

*Clinton B. Barry,*for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

Appellee obtained a judgment for $165 against appellant in the circuit court of Sebastian County, Fort Smith District, for an alleged balance due on the purchase price of a weighing scale purchased by appellee from appellant on order. The scale was sold on the installment plan under written contract, the unpaid purchase' money being evidenced by a note. The contract and note were introduced in evidence. The contract contained the following paragraph:

“You may ship me one Columbia weighing scale, freight prepaid. It is sold to me with the understanding that I may return it to you with or without reason at any time within thirty days from date of arrival of the scale, freight collect, instead of paying the purchase price. Should I not ship it back to you by freight only, within thirty days from date of arrival, I will pay you the purchase price, one hundred and ninety-five dollars. Fifteen dollars per month in equal consecutive monthly installments, the first payable thirty days after date of arrival; the remaining installments on the same date of each month thereafter.”

Appellant failed to return the scale, and, when this suit was brought for the balance of the purchase money, he interposed the defense that the scale was mechanically *111defective and wholly worthless, relying upon an implied warranty in the sale and purchase of the scale that it was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was intended.

Appellant offered to introduce testimony showing that the scale was worthless, and of no value, on account of mechanical defects therein, which was excluded by the court over his objection and exception. The objection and exception, however, was not preserved in his motion for a new trial, and therefore its admissibility cannot be determined by this court on appeal. *Trumbull*v. *Martin,*137 Ark. 495, 208 S. W. 803; *Blair Milling Company*v. *Jones,*181 Ark. 1145, 24 S. W. (2d) 319.

Only one ground was assigned by appellant in his motion for a new trial, which is as follows:

“The court erred in peremptorily instructing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.”

The note and contract, with evidence to the effect that appellant did not return the scale, constitutes the record in the case, and, upon the record as made, it was the duty of the trial court to peremptorily instruct a verdict against appellant.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00631]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Indian Gaming Commission

25 CFR Part 537

RIN 3141-AA58


Background Investigations for Persons or Entities With a 
Financial Interest in or Having a Management Responsibility for a 
Management Contract; Correction

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2021, regarding 
Background Investigations for Persons or Entities with a Financial 
Interest in or Having a Management Responsibility for a Management 
Contract. The document contained incorrect dates for submitting 
comments. This correction clarifies that comments are due January 31, 
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hoenig, 202-632-7003.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of December 2, 2021, in proposed rule FR 
Doc. 2021-25844, on page 68446, in the second column, change the Dates 
caption to read:

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or 
before January 31, 2022.

    Dated: January 6, 2022.
Michael Hoenig,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-00631 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565-01-P