alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015025EN.01000101.xml

| 24.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7400 — Federal-Mogul Corporation/TRW Engine Components)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 25/01)

On 15 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7400. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7400. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
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 Lease Trust 2014-B (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:  U.S. 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)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FATHER THOMAS EUTENEUER,

Appellant, 

v.

THE CATHOLIC MUTUAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF AMERICA,

THE DIOCESE OF PALM BEACH, INC., and ANNE LOTIERZO,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-2481

[March 23, 2023]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Gary Sweet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

432021CA001106.

Jeanette M. Lugo of Wiederhold & Kummerlen, P.A., West Palm Beach, 

for appellant.

Sharon C. Degnan of Kubicki, Draper, Orlando, for appellee The 

Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 25, 2014, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-5 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName: Jennifer M. DavisTitle: Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 29, 2016/s/ Rich MorrinName: Rich MorrinTitle: Chief Operating OfficerDate: March 29, 2016
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0188 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32004D0188

**2004/188/CFSP: Council Decision 2004/188/CFSP of 23 February 2004 concerning the appointment of the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) **

*
Official Journal L 058 , 26/02/2004 P. 0027 - 0027 *

Council Decision 2004/188/CFSP

of 23 February 2004

concerning the appointment of the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP of 11 March 2002 on the European Union Police Mission(1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 4 of Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP provides that the Council, upon a proposal by the Secretary-General/High Representative, shall appoint a Head of Mission/Police Commissioner.

(2) The Secretary-General/High Representative has proposed the appointment of assistant Commissioner Bartholomew Kevin Carty,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Bartholomew Kevin Carty is hereby appointed Head of Mission/Police Commissioner of the EUPM as of 1 March 2004.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

It shall apply until 1 March 2005.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 February 2004.

For the Council

The President

B. Cowen

(1) OJ L 70, 13.3.2002, p. 1.
#### Lyndon SCHEVECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BOISE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35294

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Lyndon Scheveck, Pro Se

Scott B. Muir, Esquire, Assistant City Attorney, Boise City Attorney’s Office, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lyndon Scheveck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C, § 1983 action alleging claims arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. *Canatella v. Van De Kamp,*486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Scheveck’s action as time-barred because Scheveck did not submit to the court any document that functioned as a complaint before the applicable statute of limitations *494had run. *See*Idaho Code § 5-219(4) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); *Canatella,*486 F.3d at 1132 (the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies in § 1983 suits); *see also*Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court."); *cf. Hauschulz v. State, Dep’t of*Corr., 143 Idaho 462, 147 P.3d 94, 98-99 (2006) (holding that a filing explicitly intended to function as a complaint and submitted to the court clerk’s office is sufficient to initiate action).

We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including Scheveck’s contention regarding equitable estoppel. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HELEN M. POLLITT,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________

2019-1481

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. PH-0752-15-0452-I-3, PH-1221-14-0780-W5.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JOHN SMARTO, Law Offices of John P. Smarto, Greensburg, PA, argued for petitioner. 

 SHARI A. ROSE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

JOSEPH H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-1481 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and STOLL,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

June 12, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-1481 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUSAN DYER REYNOLDS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DEAN E. PRESTON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23-15504 

D.C. No. 3:22-cv-08408-WHO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 30, 2024 

San Francisco, California

Before: KOH, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Dean E. Preston, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 

appeals a district court order denying his motion to dismiss Susan Dyer Reynolds’s 

claim that Preston violated Reynolds’s First Amendment rights by blocking her on 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

JUN 3 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Twitter.1“We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a 

district court’s rejection of a qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss 

stage, and we review such a denial de novo.” Polanco v. Diaz, 76 F.4th 918, 925 

(9th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). We reverse and remand for the district court to 

dismiss the case.

To overcome a qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage, a 

plaintiff must show that, “accepting all of [the plaintiff’s] allegations as true, [the 

defendant’s] conduct ‘(1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly 

established at the time of the violation.’” Id. (quoting Ballou v. McElvain, 29 F.4th 

413, 421 (9th Cir. 2022)). Reynolds argues that Preston’s conduct violated law 

clearly established by our decision in Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff, 41 F.4th 1158 

(9th Cir. 2022), vacated, 601 U.S. 205 (2024). But the Supreme Court has since 

vacated that decision. O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205, 208 (2024). 

This vacatur prevents our decision in Garnier “from spawning any legal 

consequences”—including the consequence of clearly establishing the violation of

a constitutional right. Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 713 (2011) (quoting 

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 41 (1950)). Reynolds cites no 

1 Since Reynolds filed her complaint, Twitter has been renamed X. 

Irina Ivanova, Twitter is Now X. Here’s What That Means., CBS News (July 31, 

2023, 2:18 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-rebrand-x-name-changeelon-musk-what-it-means/ [https://perma.cc/98P6-QDD4].
3 

other case clearly establishing that blocking her on Twitter violated her First 

Amendment rights.

Absent clearly established law, Preston is entitled to qualified immunity. See 

Polanco, 76 F.4th at 925. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court 

and remand with instructions to dismiss the case.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Luis Zavala, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polar Power, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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: May 26, 2020 | /s/ Luis Zavala              
|------------------ | -----------------------------
|                   | Luis Zavala                  
|                   | Chief Financial Officer      
|                   | (Principal Financial Officer)
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50263 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANGEL MIGUEL LERMA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-96-CR-26-6

- - - - - - - - - - July 17, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Angel Miguel Lerma appeals the sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for attempting to possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He argues that the sentence should be vacated because counsel was ineffective and because the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs attributable to him for sentencing purposes.No. 97-50263 -2- Lerma’s ineffective-assistance claims were not raised before the district court, and the record is thus inadequate for this court to assess the merits of his claims on direct appeal. Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of Lerma’s ineffective assistance claim but do so without prejudice to his right to raise the issue in a proper proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). We likewise decline Lerma’s request to remand the case to the district court for further factual development. See United States v. Fry , 51 F.3d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1995). Lerma’s claim that the district court erred in calculatingthe amount of drugs attributable to him is barred by the waiverof-appeal provision contained in his plea agreement, which applies to all sentencing claims on direct appeal except those regarding an upward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. The sentence he received was not the result of an upward departure. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the waiver was informed and voluntary and is therefore binding on Lerma. See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Lerma’s appeal is therefore without merit. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

SECTION 302CERTIFICATION

 

I, Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. certify that:

 

1.     I have read this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)     presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of theEvaluation Date;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee or registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

2.     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

3.     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisannual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or inother factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 
| Date: May 12, 2004 | /s/ Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|--------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|               | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.    |
|               | Chairman of  the Board &    |
|               | Chief  Executive Officer        |

 

1

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 22, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22A0610. BARBARA W. DAVIS v. HUMBLED ROOFING AND RESTORATION, 

LLC.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On December 07, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than December 17, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 383 Madison Avenue31st FloorNew York, New York 10179  RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C25, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C25  Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  March 1, 2016  /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.