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 2015-A (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: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

 

----

 
| March 27, 2018 |   |                                                             |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   |                                                             |
|                | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis                                               |
|                | Name:  | Brett D. Davis                                                   |
|                | Title: | President (senior officer in   charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
Submitted February 21;

remanded for entry of judgment imposing $600 fine, otherwise affirmed March 22, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*DANIEL CUENCA-JUAREZ, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

C150235CR; A160372

391 P3d 998

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Flynn, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

*552PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of three counts of first-degree burglary (Counts 1, 2, and 4). ORS 164.225. The court merged two counts of second-degree theft (Counts 3 and 5) into defendant’s convictions on Counts 2 and 4. On appeal, defendant raises three assignments of error. We write only to address defendant’s second assignment in which he contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing $700 in fines, and reject his remaining arguments without discussion. *See*ORAP 5.45(1); *Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.,*312 Or 376, 382, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (court has discretion to review unpreserved error of law apparent on the record). In particular, defendant points out that the court stated that it would impose a $200 minimum fine for each of Counts 1, 2, and 4. It also stated that it would impose a single $100 fine for Counts 3 and 5. Defendant asserts the court plainly erred in imposing a fine on Counts 3 and 5 because it had “no authority to impose a sentence on a merged count.” The state concedes that the court plainly erred by imposing a fine on counts that merged into other convictions. We agree and accept the state’s concession. *See State v. Wilcox,*249 Or App 248, 249, 274 P3d 893 (2012) (trial court errs in imposing sentences on counts that merged into other convictions). In addition, we conclude that, for reasons of judicial economy and the ends of justice, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. *See State v. Sasser,*275 Or App 471, 472, 364 P3d 352 (2015) (exercising discretion to correct error in imposing a $60 amount in judgment that the sentencing court lacked authority to impose).

Remanded for entry of judgment imposing $600 fine; otherwise affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP91-143-042]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Compliance Filing

February 27, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 24, 1997, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes), tendered for filing to become part 
of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following revised tariff sheets, with an 
effective date of March 1, 1997:

Second Revised Volume No. 1

First Revised Second Revised Sheet No. 4
First Revised First Revised Sheet No. 4A
First Revised First Revised Sheet No. 5

Original Volume No. 2

First Revised Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 151
First Revised Fourteen Revised Sheet No. 223
First Revised Fourteen Revised Sheet No. 245
First Revised Eighth Revised Sheet No. 269
First Revised Fourteen Revised Sheet No. 294
First Revised Ninth Revised Sheet No. 603
First Revised Sixth Revised Sheet No. 604

    Great Lakes states that on January 21, 1997, in Docket No. RP91-
143-037, the Commission issued an order accepting Great Lakes' pro 
forma Case-B alternative methodology reflecting the allocation of 
Administrative and General, Account No. 850 and Account No. 851 
expenses (A&G/S&E) on a volumetric basis, in lieu of the currently 
utilized volume-distance basis.
    Great Lakes states the above referenced tariff sheets are being 
filed in compliance with the Commission's order accepting the Case-B 
allocation methodology for A&G/S&E.
    Great Lakes states that copies of its filing were served on each of 
its firm customers, parties on the official service list in this 
proceeding, and the Public Service Commissions of the States of 
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Copies 
of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5327 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. §
1350)



Each of the undersigned officers of Parkview
Capital Credit, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



| | (i) | The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 2,
    2018 | By:    | /s/ Keith W. Smith           
|----------------------- | ------ | -----------------------------
|                        | Name:  | Keith W. Smith               
|                        | Title: | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        |        | (Principal Executive Officer)
|                        |        |                              
|Date:
    April 2, 2018 | By:    | /s/ Charles Jacobson         
|                        | Name:  | Charles Jacobson             
|                        | Title: | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        |        | (Principal Financial Officer)



The foregoing certification is being furnished
with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general information language in such filing, except to the extent
that the Company specifically incorporates by reference.



A signed original 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.
No. 11-1412.

#### Gaynor *v.*Taylor, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

                                               
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.


       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996        
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996        
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996        
<CASH>                                      46,223,000        
<SECURITIES>                                66,534,000        
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,204,000        
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0        
<INVENTORY>                                          0        
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           134,453,000        
<PP&E>                                      34,402,000        
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             349,679,000        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,918,000        
<BONDS>                                              0        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0        
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000        
<COMMON>                                        18,000        
<OTHER-SE>                                 158,450,000        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               349,679,000        
<SALES>                                              0        
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           129,839,000        
<CGS>                                                0        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               97,016,000        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,984,000        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,495,000        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,307,000)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,706,000        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (12,013,000)<F1>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0        
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0        
<CHANGES>                                            0        
<NET-INCOME>                               (12,013,000)<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.81)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.81)<F2>
        

<FN>
<F1> 1996 income before the restructuring costs, the pooling of interests with
Pets' Rx and the merger costs was $4,120,000 for the nine months ended
September 30, 1996.

<F2> 1996 EPS was negatively impacted by the pooling of interests with Pets' Rx
and a pre-tax charge of $2,901,000 related to the costs associated with the
merger of VCA and Pets' Rx.



</TABLE>
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Nevada EAVS Jurisdictions:

17 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

1,840,748 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

1,412,160 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

404,874 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

396,616 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 71.1% 

Online 11.6% 

Other 9.7% 

Mail, Email, Fax 5.9% 

In Person 1.7% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

46.6% 

In-Person 

Election Day 

210,325 

20.6% 

Mail 

518,398 

50.7% 

In-Person 

Early 

281,760 

27.6% 

Other 

11,297

1.1% 

Total Voting Locations8: 271 

Total Poll Workers9: 3,698 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Scanners

94.1% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

88.2% 

DREs with

VVPAT 

11.8% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

0.0% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 1,873,813 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 28.2% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 98.0% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 2.0% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Conducted all-mail election statewide15 

• Allowed drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation -- audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

✔ Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election ✔ tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael Antonio LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12834 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 26, 2018)

Germaine Seider, U.S. Attorney Service — Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Meghan Ann Collins, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, Frank William Zaremba, Dionja Dyer, David G. Secular, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Lopez challenges his 24-month prison sentence imposed for violating his supervised release conditions. He contends, and the government concedes, that the district court procedurally erred by considering Lopez’s rehabilitative needs in sentencing him to 24 months.

Lopez served a 70-month sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon and then began serving a three-year term of supervised release. He violated the conditions of his supervised release and pleaded guilty to those violations at his revocation hearing. His guidelines range was 7 to 13 months in prison, with a statutory maximum of 24 months. The probation office recommended 24 months. The government sought 13 months. Lopez asked for 7 months.

The court sentenced Lopez to 24 months and recommended a 500-hour drug treatment program. It explained that it was giving Lopez 24 months so that he could “get the chance” to do the drug treatment program and that it was “trying to get [him] in [the prison] for the 500-hour program.” Lopez objected to the sentence on the ground that it violated the Supreme Court’s holding in Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 332, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2391, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), that sentencing courts cannot “impos[e] or lengthen[] a prison term to promote an offender’s rehabilitation.” The district court overruled his objection and stated: “You are getting the 24 [months] because you need to have that much time for the 500-hour. You are going to be in a line. If you get in that line, it will be a long line, but I’m trying to get you in the 500-hour program.” This is Lopez’s appeal.

The government concedes that the district court committed Tapia error by imposing the 24-month sentence so that Lopez would have enough time to complete the 500-hour drug treatment program. See United States v. Alberts, 859 F.3d 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating that a district court committed Tapia error where it told the defendant that he “needed a period of time where he [could] receive the treatment that he should have”) (alterations and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1309 (11th Cir. 2014) (concluding that Tapia *681“applies in the context of resentencing upon the revocation of supervised release”). As a result, this case must be remanded for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-45342 and No. 333-90358 of Conrad Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report
dated February 18, 2003(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, described in Note 1), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Conrad Industries, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New Orleans, Louisiana

March 24, 2003
No. 11-1368.

#### Summers *v.*Summers.

Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Cer-tiorari denied.
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA – One of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) most significant 

efforts to counter the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction has been a relatively unknown project at one 

of the Soviet Union’s most isolated and secretive facilities, the former Semipalatinsk Test Site in Kazakhstan. 

DTRA’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program has partnered with the Republic of Kazakhstan’s National 

Nuclear Center to eliminate the sites’ abandoned nuclear weapons testing infrastructure, identify and secure 

vulnerable nuclear materials, and leverage the unique territory to advance a shared goal of nuclear nonproliferation.

2021 will be a year of celebration. This year marks the 30th anniversary of three significant milestones: the 

closure of the Semipalatinsk Test Site on August 29, 1991, the creation of the Cooperative Threat Reduction 

program on December 12, 1991, and Kazakhstan’s independence on December 16, 1991. Together with our 

partners in Kazakhstan, DTRA will share the story of our work to secure the former test site through a year-long 

communications campaign, “Securing Semipalatinsk: Nuclear Weapons Heritage, Non-Proliferation Legacy.” 

Throughout the year we will share a series of videos, conversations and other media, including previously 

unreleased materials and insights from many personnel who were directly involved.

Products will be shared via DTRA’s social media platforms, @DODDTRA on Twitter, Instragram, and

YouTube and ‘Defense Threat Reduction Agency’ on Facebook using the hashtags #SecuringSemipalatinsk and 

#CTR30, and will be accesbile via DTRA’s website at https://www.dtra.mil/about/events.

For media inquiries, contact DTRA Public Affairs at 703-767-5870 or DTRA-PA@mail.mil.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment
No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-4 of our report dated September 7,
2001 relating to the combined financial statements of the Gas Compression
Business of Schlumberger Limited, which appears in the Current Report on Form
8-K/A of Hanover Compressor Company dated November 9, 2001. We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
May 24, 2002