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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brett D. Davis, 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 CNH Equipment Trust 2014-C (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 parties: Citibank, N.A.

 

----

 

March 29, 2017

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis                                               |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis                                                   |
|   | Title: | President (senior   officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             947
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                        21
<INVENTORY>                                      1,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,423
<PP&E>                                           2,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,855
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,391
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,040
<SALES>                                         10,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,432
<CGS>                                            5,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (12)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    738
<INCOME-TAX>                                        48
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                690
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       690
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
#### Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge M. Hannah LAUCK; Magistrate Roderick Young; President Donald Trump, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7295

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*175Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sundari K. Prasad seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to comply with the court’s prior order to particularize her complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by particularizing the complaint as directed, we conclude that the order Prasad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* We deny as moot Prasad’s motion to consolidate this appeal with the mandamus petition we previously denied in No. 17-1910, and deny as unnecessary Prasad’s motion to amend to add President Trump as a party on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Prasad the chance to particularize her- complaint, and she failed to do so. *Cf. Goode,*807 F.3d at 629-30.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC, SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection
with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Medicine Man Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2020 (the
“Report”), we, the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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.





|Dated:
June 5, 2020 | /s/ Justin Dye                      
|------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                    | Justin Dye, Chief Executive Officer 
|                    |                                     
|                    |                                     
|Dated:
June 5, 2020 | /s/ Nancy Huber                     
|                    | Nancy Huber, Chief Financial Officer
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Nos. 10-20-00303-CV; 10-20-00304-CV; 10-20-00305-CV;

10-20-00306-CV; 10-20-00307-CV;

10-20-00308-CV

IN RE ALFRED LEE STONE

Original Proceeding

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 12-0084; 14-0076; 18-2902; 19-29K; 20-466; 20-625C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In one motion, Relator, Alfred Lee Stone, a prison inmate, moved to rescind the 

Respondent’s order of withdrawal in these six trial court cases: 12-0084, 14-0076, 18-2902, 

19-29K, 20-466, and 20-625C. According to Relator, Respondent, the trial court, refused 

to rule, and the motion was returned to Relator by the District Clerk’s Office. In a petition 

for writ of mandamus filed on November 24, 2020, Relator requested a mandamus from 

this Court ordering Respondent to rule on Relator’s motion in all six cases. 
In re Stone Page 2

After requesting a response, we received an order from Respondent indicating that

only one of the withdrawal orders mentioned in Relator’s petition originated in 

Respondent’s court; that being case number 20-466. Respondent denied Relator’s Motion 

to Rescind to the extent it had jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus pertaining to case number 

20-466, that being docket number 10-20-00307-CV, is dismissed as moot. 

Because the remaining petitions for writ of mandamus were directed toward 

Respondent’s failure to rule on motions not pending in Respondent’s court and thus not 

within Respondent’s jurisdiction, those petitions, numbered 10-20-00303-CV, 10-20-

00304-CV, 10-20-00305-CV, 10-20-00306-CV, and 10-20-00308-CV, are denied.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Neill, and

Justice Johnson

Petition dismissed

Petitions denied

Opinion delivered and filed January 20, 2021

[OT06]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,300-01

EX PARTE ADRIAN D. CURRY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1127146-A IN THE 338TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of less

than one gram of cocaine and was sentenced to 150 days’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his

conviction.

Applicant contends, among other things, that his guilty plea was involuntary because he did

not in fact possess a controlled substance. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of

law and recommended that we grant relief. Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App.
2

2014).

Relief is granted. The judgment in cause number 1127146 in the 338th District Court of

Harris County is set aside. If in custody, Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of

Harris County to answer the charges in the information. The trial court shall issue any necessary

bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: July 27, 2016

Do not publish
Memorandum 

To United States Department of Energy 

From Benjamin Longstreth, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Date October 24, 2011 

Re Ex Parte Communication 

On Friday, October 21, 2011, a group of non-profit and state energy efficiency advocates met with 

representatives of the Department of Energy to discuss the Direct Final Rule for Residential 

Furnaces, Heat Pumps and Central Air Conditioners (Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps, Direct Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 37,408 (June 27, 2011); Energy Conservation Program: 

Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Residential Central Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 76 Fed. Reg. 37,549 (June 27, 2011)). 

The efficiency advocates discussed the benefits of the direct final rule and comments that had been 

submitted to the Department during the public comment period as well as documents provided to 

the Department by the American Gas Association (AGA) at an October 11, 2011 ex parte meeting 

between the AGA and the Department. 

The following individuals were present or on the telephone: 

Roland Risser, DOE 

John Cymbalsky, DOE 

Dan Cohen, DOE Office of General Counsel 

Sam Walsh, DOE Office of General Counsel 

Eric Stas, DOE Office of General Counsel 

 Steve Nadel, ACEEE 

 Dennis Beck, California Energy Commission 

Katherine Kennedy, NRDC 

Meg Waltner, NRDC 

Benjamin Longstreth, NRDC 

Tim Ballo, Earthjustice 

Joanna Mauer, ASAP 

Andrew DeLaski, ASAP 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ Benjamin Longstreth 

 Natural Resources Defense Council
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                             199,239
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,646,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                       232,210
<INVENTORY>                                      1,458,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,196,606
<PP&E>                                           3,971,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,081,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,432,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,651,514
<BONDS>                                          2,735,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         224,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,432,603
<SALES>                                         14,021,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,021,517
<CGS>                                           11,761,916
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,761,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,577,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     5,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 226,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    450,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                       165,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                285,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       285,168
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 235

To proclaim the week of June 16 to June 22, 1996, as ‘‘National Roller

Coaster Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 27 (legislative day, MARCH 26), 1996

Mr. THURMOND submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To proclaim the week of June 16 to June 22, 1996, as

‘‘National Roller Coaster Week’’.

Whereas the roller coaster is a unique form of fun, enjoyed

by millions of Americans, as well as people all over the

world;

Whereas roller coasters have been providing fun since the

15th century;

Whereas, in 1885, an American named Phillip Hinckle invented a steam-powered chain lift to hoist coasters to new

heights and new downhill speeds;

Whereas advances in technology and a renewed interest in leisure and recreation have meant a resurgence for roller

coasters;
2

SRES 235 ATS

Whereas engineers working with computers have been able to

create the safest, most thrilling rides ever;

Whereas there are an estimated 500 roller coasters worldwide, and more than fifty new projects underway in

1996; and

Whereas the world’s oldest existing roller coaster, Leap-TheDips, is located at Lakemont Park in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and is currently being restored: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate proclaims the week of June

2 16 through June 22, 1996, as ‘‘National Roller Coaster

3 Week.’’

Æ
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 234

Relative to the death of Edmund S. Muskie

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 27, (legislative day, MARCH 26), 1996

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. DOLE, Mr. COHEN and Ms. SNOWE )

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the death of Edmund S. Muskie

Whereas, the Senate fondly remembers former Secretary of

State former Governor of Maine, and former Senator

from Maine, Edmund S. Muskie;

Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie spent six years in the Maine

House of Representatives, becoming minority leader;

Whereas, in 1954, voters made Edmund S. Muskie the

State’s first Democratic Governor in 20 years;

Whereas, after a second two-year term, he went on in 1958

to become the first popularly elected Democratic Senator

in Maine’s history;

Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie in 1968, was chosen as Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee;
2

SRES 234 ATS

Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie left the Senate to become President Carter’s Secretary of State;

Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie served with honor and distinction in each of these capacities: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound

2 sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death

3 of the Honorable Edmund S. Muskie, formerly a Senator

4 from the State of Maine.

5 Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these reso6 lutions to the House of Representatives and transmit an

7 enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased.

8 Resolved, That when the Senate adjourn today, it ad9 journ as a further mark of respect to the memory of the

10 deceased Senator

Æ
### 4

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**OrvilleS. Carpenter,Agril 14, 193Q. Rice 2
IilO., to eubalt to them a list of all employersoovered by the Texas Unemployment Coqmnsatlm hct. Esy we make these reports of status availableto the T-8 ‘8orld*a

Fair Commission,Inc. in or&r that they night obtain from them the x1fmO8 Of the 0&0yOP8?"
You recpmt the opinion of thl8 dqxwtas-to +!her the Taure Unemplqmnt Cappaa- -- _ _ - Jion

.

arid68 oftauHon. Orvlllr S. Carpenter,April 14, 1939, page 3

The language quoted from the above referrod to erotlon is plain end unambiguous. It authorlzebthe Commleelon to exemlna and to;lnepeot reoords of employers and to require reporte'whloh the Commle8iondeems neoesaary. It 1s obvlouefrom the context thet the intent of the Legltiiab ture wee to make these reporta~oonfldentIel end ,~' olosad to the public at large. Thn CommItleion 3I expreeslyprohibited from publishlngor.reveallng in any menner the private affairs of those buslnea8 ooncerna end employerswhich come under Its jurIa6lctlon. It follows from the wording of the act ltaelf that Informationcontained in the reports may not legally be divulgedby placing the reports in the hands of pertleswho are not expresly authorizedto Inspect and exemlne them.

we find, therefore,an oxpress prohlbltlon In the Act reetrelnlng the Commleelonfrom dlrroloalng

Informationcontained in the reports it **roquire8** of employingunits through publication of aeme or laying the records open to public ln8pectlon.
It Is true that the eectlonunder discussion speolffcellyexcludes *public employees In the psrformencoor their pub110 duties* from t.;.nln;M-;Itlon.

Thr Texas'

World's Fair Commlsa non-private oorporatlon,In our opinion, &a not fall within this exemption,despite its status of patrioticand civic importance.Eoh. Grvllle S. Carpenter, April 14, 1939, IZn,ge 4

tie are constra3ned

to hold that the Texas UnenploymeatCoapeneatlon ~omr&salon Is not authorized to make repbts of stahhs of employingunits available to the Teule %Od.(l'8 Falr Comniisslon, Ino., in order.thatthe Cocmlesionml&t obtain froni them reports the IlCUW8 

### 0r employers.

Truetingthat the above fully answers your Inquiry,we a-0 Tour8 very truly
ATToHsHTO~aFT~

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis LOZA, also known as Luis Miguel Loza-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51416 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr„ Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Luis Loza, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Loza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Loza has not filed a response. We have reviewed'counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. According*276ly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Counsel’s alternative motion for leave to withdraw and appoint substitute counsel is DENIED as moot.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,