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

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin
J. Cullum, 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 2017-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 26, 2018



By:

/s/ Kevin J. CullumKevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
EHS&S Regulatory Affairs

P.O. Box 9777

Federal Way, WA 98063-9777

June 26, 2013

Robert (Bob) Perciasepe

EPA Acting Administrator 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

cc: Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Program Division, OAQPS/EPA, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711 (by e-mail to:) spence.kelley@epa.gov.

re: Comment Period extension Request for Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review; 78 FR 31316, 

May 23, 2013; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR-2012-0640

Letter/Introduction

Weyerhaeuser Company appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in response to EPA’s 

data-intensive review of the existing NSPS-subject Kraft pulp mills and the proposed rule that 

would establish a new NSPS Subpart for modified, reconstructed or new Kraft pulp mills. 

Headquartered in Federal Way, Washington, Weyerhaeuser owns and operates across the U.S. 

five Kraft process pulp mills. Any future projects at any of these mills could make the proposed 

rule applicable, and therefore Weyerhaeuser is very interested in this rulemaking and intends to 

provide comment. 

However, our staff has recently been able to access some of the very large datasets involving our 

mills EPA has analyzed for this rulemaking. They now foresee needing more time to evaluate 

this information to provide meaningful comment. We request a 30 day extension of the current 

comment period ending July 8, 2013, to August 7, 2013.

Weyerhaeuser sincerely appreciates EPA’s consideration of our request. 

Please contact Mr. Stephen Woock at steve.woock@weyerhaeuser.com or 919-538-2401 with 

any questions you may have regarding this request.

Sincerely,

Shari Brown

Director of Environment & Sustainability

Weyerhaeuser
No. 09-9298.

#### Alton Waddell-El, Petitioner v. Virginia.

559 U.S. 1096, 130 S. Ct. 2381,

176 L. Ed. 2d 775,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3530.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
No. 09-9536.

#### Edward J. Mierzwa, Petitioner v. Hackensack University Medical Center.

559 U.S. 1066, 130 S. Ct. 2140,

176 L. Ed. 2d 720,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3438.

April 19, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until May 10, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4891 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an Independent 

Safety Assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2006 

Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. ENGEL, and Mrs. 

KELLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct 

an Independent Safety Assessment of the Indian Point 

Nuclear Power Plant. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INDEPENDENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT. 

4 Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 

5 of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall 

6 transmit to the Congress a report containing the results 

7 of— 

8 (1) a focused, in-depth Independent Safety As9 sessment of the design, construction, maintenance, 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4891 IH 

1 and operational safety performance of the systems at 

2 the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, Reactors 2 

3 and 3, located in Westchester County, New York, in4 cluding the systems described in section 2; and 

5 (2) a comprehensive evaluation of the radio6 logical emergency plan for Indian Point Nuclear 

7 Power Plant, Reactors 2 and 3, conducted by the 

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Depart9 ment of Homeland Security, which shall include— 

10 (A) a detailed explanation of the factual 

11 basis upon which the Nuclear Regulatory Com12 mission and the Federal Emergency Manage13 ment Agency relied in— 

14 (i) approving the radiological emer15 gency plan; and 

16 (ii) making subsequent annual find17 ings of reasonable assurance that the plan 

18 will adequately protect the public in the 

19 event of an emergency, 

20 beginning on July 25, 2003 and continuing to 

21 the present; and 

22 (B) a detailed response to each of the criti23 cisms of the radiological emergency plan con24 tained in the Review of Emergency Prepared25 ness of Areas Adjacent to Indian Point and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4891 IH 

1 Millstone, published by James Lee Witt Associ2 ates on January 10, 2003. 

3 SEC. 2. SYSTEMS. 

4 The systems referred to in section 1(1) are the fol5 lowing: 

6 (1) The reactor protection system. 

7 (2) The control room ventilation system and the 

8 containment ventilation system. 

9 (3) The 4.16 kv electrical system. 

10 (4) The condensate system. 

11 (5) The spent fuel storage system. 

12 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT MODEL. 

13 The Independent Safety Assessment conducted at In14 dian Point Nuclear Power Plant shall be equal in depth 

15 and breadth to the Independent Safety Assessment of the 

16 Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, located near Bath, 

17 Maine, conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

18 in 1996. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# C_2017429EN.01000101.xml

| 14.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8722 — Omers/Thames Water)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 429/01)

On 8 December 2017, 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 English 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 32017M8722. 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 32017M8722. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
No. 09-7714.

#### Fred L. Murray, Jr., Petitioner v. Hyacinth Walker-Murray.

559 U.S. 1059, 130 S. Ct. 2368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3001.

176 L. Ed. 2d 579,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 909, 130 S. Ct. 1291, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1082, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 913.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

HELENA, MONTANA 59620-3003

Supreme Court No.

DA 20-0150

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JENNIFER GRUCE,

Respondent and Appellant.

FILED

MAY 0 4 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under M. R. App.P. 26(1), Appellant is given an extension of time

until June 3, 2020, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's brief.

DATED this May 4, 2020

c: Carl B. Jensen, Timothy Charles Fox, Terryl T. Matt

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

PO BOX 203003 • HELENA MT • 59620-3003 • TELEPHONE: (406) 444-3858 • FAX: (406) 444-5705

05/04/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0150
No. 09-7922.

#### Dexter Ramone Palmer, Petitioner v. Hugh Smith, Warden.

559 U.S. 1088, 130 S. Ct. 2144,

176 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3222.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 945, 130 S. Ct. 1517, 176 L. Ed. 2d 124, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1472.
No. 09-1015.

#### Yuri J. Stoyanov, Petitioner v. Department of the Navy.

559 U.S. 1049, 130 S. Ct. 2354,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3061.

176 L. Ed. 2d 562,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 558.
Exhibit 10r

 

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

 

The following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee directors.  This document is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee director.

 

Retainer and Meetings Fees

 

Non-employee director compensation may be revised from time to time by the Board of Directors.  The Board of Directors of Rollins, Inc. (the “Company”), has approved effective January 1, 2011, the following fee schedule for the Board of Directors of the Company and all Committees of the Board of Directors of the Company.

 

	
Board   of Directors’

Annual   Retainer:

Board   Meeting Attended:
    	
 
    	
 

$26,000   per year to each non-employee Director 

$2,000   per meeting attended
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Audit   Committee 

Chairman”
    	
 
    	
 

$20,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee and a   fee of $1,500 for preparation for each quarterly Audit Committee meeting)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee: 

Telephonic   Meeting:
    	
 
    	
$2,500   per Audit Committee meeting 

$2,500   per Audit Committee telephonic meeting
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Compensation   Committee 

Chairman:
    	
 
    	
 

$10,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee:
    	
 
    	
$2,000   per Compensation Committee meeting
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Nominating/Governance   Committee  

Chairman:
    	
 
    	
 

$6,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee:
    	
 
    	
$1,500   per Nominating/Governance Committee meeting
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Diversity   Committee  

Chairman:
    	
 
    	
 

$6,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee:
    	
 
    	
$1,500   per Diversity Committee meeting
    


 

The above Committee fees are in addition to the fees otherwise payable to directors for service on the Board of Directors of the Company.

 

Equity Compensation

 

Under the terms of the Company’s Stock Incentive Plans, directors are eligible to receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based compensation awards.  However, the Company does not make any such awards to non-employees directors under its current compensation practices.

 

All non-employee directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all services as a director, including committee participation of special assignments.
No. 09-9681.

#### Robert Smith, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1083, 130 S. Ct. 2130,

176 L. Ed. 2d 750,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3173,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 84.
Opinion issued August 21, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 00 292
- CV

——————————— IN RE BRANDY BRENAY CHARLE S AND PROPHET RONALD

DWAYNE WHITFIELD , Relator s

Original Proceeding o n Petition f or Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION R elators, Brandy Brenay Charles and Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the denial of their right to be heard to present their defense in the underlying termination proceeding , seeking to compel the respondent district judge to give them a trial by jury , and to be heard on all motions, including the withdrawal of their trial counsel and appointment of new2

counsel

. 1 Generally, to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator s must establish that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that t he y lack an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator s bear the burden of proving both of these two requirements. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).
On July 11 , 201 8 , a clerk’s record was filed in this Court containing , among other documents, pro se original and amended and supplemental n otices of appeal and relator Charles’s first amended notice of appeal, filed by counsel f rom the final decree for termination, signed by the respondent on May 3, 2018. This Court takes judicial notice that r elators’ notice s of appeal ha ve been assigned by the Clerk of this Court to appellate cause number 01

- 1 8

- 00 485

- CV, for which relators have been appointed counsel

. See In re Chaumette , 456 S.W.3d 299, 303 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (noting appellate court may take judic ial notice of its own records in related proceeding involving same parties). Thus, because relators have filed a notice of appeal of the final decree for termination , which remain s pending under appellate cause number 01

- 1 8

- 00 485

- CV , they have an adequate appellate remedy to challenge the denial of their right to be heard to present their defense

. See Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 840 (mandamus relief

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of K.L.W., A Child , Cause No. 2017

- 02559J , in the 314 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable John Phillips presiding.3

is not available when adequate appellate remedy exists); see also In re Esparza , No.
14

– 16

– 00748

– CV, 2016 WL 5947445, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 13, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citations omitted) ( “Except in unusual circumstances, not applicable here, mandamus relief is not available after a final judgment has been issued because relator then has an adequate remedy by direct appeal.” ).
A cc o r d in gl y , we deny the p e t i t i on f o r w r i t o f m a nd a m

u s because relators have

a n adequate appellate remedy

. We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley , and Massengale

.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Terra Nostra Resources Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald C. Nicholson, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  November 23, 2005

By:

/s/ Donald C. Nicholson



Name:  Donald C. Nicholson

Title:    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 09-8877.

#### Esteban Geronimo, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 998, 130 S. Ct. 1751,

176 L. Ed. 2d 223,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2321.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          81,224
<SECURITIES>                                    49,594
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,135
<INVENTORY>                                     69,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               399,095
<PP&E>                                         173,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 551,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,474
<BONDS>                                         65,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       176,140
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   551,939
<SALES>                                        518,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               518,778
<CGS>                                          237,913
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  237,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               201,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,099
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 80,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51
        

</TABLE>
# C_2018356EN.01014701.xml

| 4.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/147 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/147

---

P8_TA(2017)0430

Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Karel Pinxten

European Parliament decision of 15 November 2017 on the nomination of Karel Pinxten as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0328/2017 — 2017/0812(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2018/C 356/25)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0328/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0328/2017),

| — | having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0336/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0336/2017),

| A. | whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| B. | whereas at its meeting of 19 October 2017 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas at its meeting of 19 October 2017 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;

| 1. | Delivers a negative opinion on the Council’s nomination of Karel Pinxten as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
EXHIBIT 23.2






               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Patriot Scientific Corporation
San Diego, California



We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  previously  filed
Registration  Statements (No.  333-36418,  No.  333-57602 and No.  333-81156) of
Patriot  Scientific  Corporation of our report dated August 9, 2001,  except for
note 1 dated as of  August  15,  2001  relating  to the  consolidated  financial
statements  and  the  financial   statement   schedule  of  Patriot   Scientific
Corporation,  appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended May 31, 2003. Our report contained an explanatory  paragraph regarding the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern.


/s/  BDO Seidman, LLP


Los Angeles, California
August 28, 2003
No. 09-8313.

#### Cornell Lorenzo Sanders, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 953, 130 S. Ct. 1542,

176 L. Ed. 2d 136,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1473.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 349 Fed. Appx. 465.
No. 09-659.

#### Matthew Speights, Petitioner v. City of Oceanside, California, et al.

559 U.S. 937, 130 S. Ct. 1515,

176 L. Ed. 2d 112,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1322.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, denied.