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

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, (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 February 25, 2015, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-1 and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (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.By:

/s/ Sandra M. BroderickName:

Sandra M. BroderickTitle:

EVP Head of OperationsDate:

March 30, 2018By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

Executive Vice President Capital Markets and TreasurerDate:

March 30, 2018
# C_2023329EN.01002501.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Tavitova v EUIPO– Cordier (AURUS)

(Case T-662/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark AURUS - International registration of the earlier word mark AUDAS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 329/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Zalina Tavitova (Batoulieh, Lebanon) (represented by: V. Kojevnikov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cordier (Bordeaux, France) (represented by: D. Remy, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 August 2022 (Case R 2139/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zalina Tavitova to pay the costs incurred by Cordier. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zalina Tavitova to pay the costs incurred by Cordier.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 7, 9.1.2023.

---
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

# Schedule of U.S. Secretary of Education

# Schedule of U.S. Secretary of Education

                                    -        
Monday, February19 - Friday, February 23, 2024(*Schedule subject to change.*)
Monday, February 19
No public events scheduled.
Tuesday, February 20
No public events scheduled.
Wednesday, February 21
**9:30 am ET**Secretary  Cardona will  travel to a Hispanic Serving Institution in Warwick, Rhode Island, alongside  Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee to discuss the need for increased career  pathways and career and technical education (CTE) programming and  apprenticeships, especially in areas that support the Latino community. They  will tour the CTE program at Community College of Rhode Island – Knight Campus  and speak with students and leaders of the RI Reconnect.
Thursday, February 22
No public events scheduled.
Friday, February 23
No public events scheduled.
             How Do I Find...?    - Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms
- More...
      Information About...    - Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity
             
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
- Student Loans
- Repaying Loans
- Defaulted Loans
- Loan Forgiveness
- Loan Servicers
- Grants & Programs
- Apply for Pell Grants
- Grants Forecast
- Apply for a Grant
- Laws & Guidance
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- Civil Rights
- IDEA Website
- Data & Research
- Education Statistics
- Postsecondary Education Data
- ED Data Express
- Nation's Report Card
- What Works Clearinghouse
- Open Data Platform
- COVID Relief Data
- About Us
- Contact Us
- ED Offices
- Jobs
- Press Releases
- FAQs
- Recursos en español
- Budget, Performance
- Privacy Program
- Homeroom Blog
- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information Quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 862 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 862

 To amend the National Trails System Act to extend the Lewis and Clark 
            National Historic Trail, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2019

   Mr. Johnson of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Yarmuth) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Trails System Act to extend the Lewis and Clark 
            National Historic Trail, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eastern Legacy Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.

    (a) Extension.--Section 5(a)(6) of the National Trails System Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(6)) is amended, in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``three thousand seven hundred'' and 
        inserting ``4,900'';
            (2) by striking ``Wood River, Illinois,'' and inserting 
        ``the Ohio River in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,''; and
            (3) by striking ``maps identified as, `Vicinity Map, Lewis 
        and Clark Trail' study report dated April 1977'' and inserting 
        ``the map entitled Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 
        Authorized Trail Including Proposed Eastern Legacy Extension, 
        dated April 2018, and numbered 648/143721''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### COM. v. FRAUENS, T.

747 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/07/2017

CP-02-CR-0016336-2014 (Allegheny)

Affirmed
#### IN RE: CAPITAL OPTIONS, LLC, Debtor, Capital Options, LLC, Appellant, v. C. Dennis Loomis; et al., Appellees.

No. 16-60053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 17, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed January 10, 2018

H. Lee Horner, Jr., Esquire, Goldstein, Horner & Horner, Cortaro, AZ, for Appellant

Steven D. Jerome, Attorney, Snell *&*Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for Appellees C. Dennis Loomis, Baker Hostetler, LLP

.Warren John Stapleton, Esquire, Attorney, Osborn Maledon, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellee George H. Goldsmith

Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

This is an appeal by Capital Options, LLC (Capital) from the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization that was to be funded by the proceeds of' Capital’s adversary proceedings against George H. Goldsmith and G2, LLC. The Bankruptcy Court, having dismissed Capital’s adversary proceeding with prejudice, found the reorganization plan to be infeasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a), and also dismissed the administrative, proceeding.

The denial of confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See In re Marshall,*721 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013). In a contemporaneously filed memorandum disposition in *In re Capital Options, LLC,*No. 15-60054, we affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the Capital’s adversary proceeding. As this confirms the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the reorganization plan was infeasible, the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the confirmation plan is AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

WALLACE, J.,

dissenting.

While I agree with the majority on the merits, I would instead dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal is from* the denial of plan confirmation without prejudice. The Supreme Court held in *Bul*
      *482
      *lard v. Blue Hills Bank*that the denial of plan confirmation with leave to amend is categorically not a final order. — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 1692, 191 L.Ed.2d 621 (2015). While *Bullard*involved a Chapter 13 case, the Court’s reasoning applies with equal force to Chapter 11 cases, such as ours. *See id.*at 1693 (“These concerns [relating to piecemeal appeals] are heightened if the same rule applies in Chapter 11, as the parties assume”). Although not binding on us, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reached this same conclusion, citing *Bullard,*and held it had jurisdiction only by granting leave to review an interlocutory appeal. Unlike the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, we cannot review interlocutory appeals, except in circumstances not applicable here. *See In re Gugliuzza,*852 F.3d 884, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2017), citing 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                             
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Floor 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2015, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor,
CITIBANK N.A., as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC27 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive
Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
#### Amor Medina Del ROSARIO; Elvie Canlas Del Rosario, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee FOR the MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST, SERIES 2006-F1.; PNC Mortgage, Inc., FKA National City Mortgage Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56466

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*723Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed March 1, 2018

Amor Medina Del Rosario, Pro Se

EMe Canias Del Rosario, Pro Se

David M. Chute, Attorney, Wolfe & Wy-man LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Amor Medina Del Rosario and Elvie Canias Del Rosario appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motion to vacate its judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging claims related to their mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion to vacate because appellants failed to establish any basis for relief. *See id.*at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted March 3,

reversed and remanded April 26, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*TRAVIS JOEL SCHELER, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Douglas County Circuit Court

12CR2205FE; A160495

393 P3d 275

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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

*160PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained by police officers from a warrantless search of his backpack. He argues that the search was not a valid search incident to arrest and that it was not a lawful inventory. The state agrees with defendant on both points, and concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.
DISMISS; Opinion Filed July 11, 2013.



### In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01343

- CV

DONNA GAIL PARKER , Appellant

V.

TURTLE CREEK FINANCI AL GP., LLC AND RANDY DOWDIN G , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 09

- 13806

- D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated March 12, 2013, we notified

appellant the time for filing her brief had expired. We directed appellant to file both her brief

and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the brief and

an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date,

appellant has not filed her brief, an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court

regarding the status of her brief.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c).

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE

121343F.P05– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DONNA GAIL PARKER, Appellant

No. 05

- 12

- 01343

- CV V.

TURTLE CREEK FINANCIAL GP., LLC AND RANDY DOWDING, Appellees On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 09

- 13806

- D. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices Lang and Myers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees TURTLE CREEK FINANCIAL GP., LLC AND RANDY DOWDING recover their costs of this appeal from appellant DONNA GAIL PARKER.

Judgment entered this 11th day of July, 2013.

/David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, a
Maryland real estate investment trust (the Issuer), hereby certifies, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K (the Annual Report) of the Issuer for the year ended December 31, 2004, which
accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m(a)) and that the information contained in the
Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer. By:
    /s/ Charles E. Mueller, Jr.Charles E. Mueller, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) Date: February 28, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cedrick DIGGS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10308

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 14, 2018

Cedrick Diggs, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cedrick Diggs, federal prisoner # 27072-177, stands convicted of three counts of conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery and three counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. In the underlying matter, the district court denied, as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Diggs’s motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 and denied his motion for recusal of the district court judge. Diggs seeks a COA solely from the denial of his recusal motion and asks that the matter be remanded to the district court for consideration by a different district court judge.

Because Diggs appeals the denial of his recusal motion, a COA is not required. *See*
      *461
      *Trevino v. Johnson,*168 F.3d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, his motion for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.

In his motion for recusal, Diggs argued that, based upon disciplinary matters and complaints of impartiality involving the district court judge, which had nothing to do with Diggs’s case, the judge could not be impartial and unbiased in the matter because Diggs is an African American. Diggs’s conclusory argument for recusal failed to show that the judge displayed an antagonism against African Americans that would have made a fair judgment impossible. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a) & (b)(1); *Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal. *See United States v. Scroggins,*485 F.3d 824, 829 (5th Cir. 2007).

The denial of Diggs’s motion for recusal is AFFIRMED. Diggs’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED as moot. Diggs is WARNED that future repetitive and frivolous filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

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.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                     LIFESTYLE INNOVATIONS, INC FORM 10-KSB
                     FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2004
              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Johnson, certify that:

1.       I am the chief executive officer of Lifestyle Innovations, Inc.

2.       Attached to this certification is Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
         June 30, 2004, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed by the
         issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the
         "Exchange Act"), which contains consolidated financial statements.

3.       I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
         pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         o        The periodic report containing the consolidated financial
                  statements fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

         o        The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the consolidated financial condition and
                  consolidated results of operations of the issuer for the
                  periods presented.

October 12, 2004                                    /s/ Paul Johnson
                                                    ------------------
                                                    Paul Johnson
                                                    President and
                                                    Principal Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by Lifestyle Innovations, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.