alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31
 CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SERVICING FUNCTION OF THE SERVICER PURSUANT
TO Rule 15d-14(d)
  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 Volkswagen Auto
Lease Trust 2009-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; and5.
    
    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.
   /s/ Andrew StuartAndrew StuartExecutive Vice President & CFO
(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28360]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 27, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 403 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-98, 
CP2018-140.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-28360 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14808-001]


Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Surrender of 
Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, permittee for the 
proposed Panther Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, has requested 
that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on 
October 11, 2017, and would have expired on September 30, 2020.\1\ The 
project would have been located near the town of Simpson in Lackawanna 
and Wayne Counties, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 161 FERC 62,026 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14808 will remain in effect 
until the close of business, January 26, 2018. But, if the Commission 
is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the 
close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\ 
New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the 
permit surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2017).

    Dated: December 27, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28348 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 99.17**

 
|                                                           | **Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Suite 501, 55 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5J 2H7 |
| **T** (416) 947-0907 **F** (416) 947-0395                 |
| **www.rpacan.com**                                        |
|                                                      |

 

**CONSENT OF ROSCOE POSTLE ASSOCIATES INC.**

 

In connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 40-F of Franco-Nevada Corporation, we consent to references to our name and to the use of the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Goldstrike Mine, Eureka and Elko Counties, State of Nevada, USA” and dated March 16, 2012  (the “Report”) in the 2011 Annual Information Form of Franco-Nevada Corporation dated March 26, 2012 (the “AIF”), which is filed as an exhibit to, and incorporated in, the Form 40-F.

 

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-176856) and on Form F-10 (No. 333-176722) of the references to our name and the use of the Report. We also consent to reference to us under the heading “Experts” in the AIF which is filed as an exhibit to, and incorporated by reference in, this Annual Report on Form 40-F which is incorporated by reference in such Registration Statements.

 

 
| DATED:   March 29, 2012    |                            |   |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |                            |   |
| Roscoe   Postle Associates Inc. |                            |   |
|                            |                            |   |
|                            |                            |   |
| /s/   Deborah McCombe           |                            |   |
| Name:                           | Deborah   McCombe               |   |   |
| Title:                          | Executive   Vice President, RPA |   |   |

 

----
Jonathan SIMONELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
The Honora ble Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1053

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Keith J. Gatlin, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 2, 1996 Filed: June 25, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Keith Gatlin pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (cra ck), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and conspiring to launde r money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The district cour t sentenced Gatlin to 121 1 months imprisonment and five years supervi sed release, and he appeals. Counsel filed-2-

a bri ef pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gatlin filed a pro s e supplemental brief with our permission. We affirm. We reject Gatlin's challenge to the district court's drug-quantity calculation
. Absent plain error, Gatlin cannot now challenge this calculation because he failed to object to the quantity determination in the presentence report (PSR) either before or at senten cing. See United States v. Karam , 37 F.3d 1280, 1285 (8th Cir. 1994), cert . denied , 115 S. Ct. 1113 (1995). We find no plain error in the district court's drug

quantity determination based upon the factual statements in the PSR. Se e United States v. Hill , 91 F.3d 1064, 1072 (8th Cir. 1996) (defining plain error); United States v
. LaRoche , 83 F.3d 958, 959 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (district court entitled t o accept as true factual statements in PSR to which defendant does not object). We requested Gatlin's counsel to submit a supplemental brief in this cas e addressing whether Gatlin's pri or Eastern District of Missouri conviction barred a part of the ins tant prosecution based on double jeopardy. Having carefully reviewed th e record, counsel's supplemental brief, and a second pro se brief submitted by Gatlin, we now conclude the indictment does not raise double jeopardy concerns on its face, and thus a double-jeopardy claim lacks merit. See United States v. Vaughan , 13 F.3d 1186, 1188 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 511 U.S. 1094 (1994). Having reviewed

the record, we find no other nonfrivolous issues. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 84188 MARIO BLADIMIR TREJO, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. 

# FIL
FEB 2 it 2022
ELIZAti .11A. CLE OF LIPREMZ COURT ei l
CLERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a pretrial "motion to dismiss case/prosecutorial misconduct and perjury." Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Erika D. Ballou, Judge.

Because no statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order denying a pretrial "motion to dismiss case/prosecutorial misconduct and perjury", this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. NRS 177.015(1)(h) (stating that State or defendant may appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss); Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Silver 

# Ae,64. 19

Pickering 7 , J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
01 1947A 

### 2„:1- 601 3

### cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge Mario Bladirnir Trejo Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

OA I 947A 4740:17

, 

### 2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,839]


Sony Electronics, Inc., Sony Technology Center--Pittsburgh, TV 
Assembly Division, Pittsburgh Customer Satisfaction Center Division; 
Mt. Pleasant, PA; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on January 9, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Sony 
Electronics, Inc., Sony Technology Center--Pittsburgh, TV Assembly 
Division, Pittsburgh Customer Satisfaction Service Center Division, Mt. 
Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-7126 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
STATE of Florida, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kyle Dylan MORAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0840

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Joshua EVERY

No. 2018-KK-0368

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

Writ Denied.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

I agree with the writ denial in this matter. I write separately to emphasize that the trial court has vast discretion under La. C.Cr.P. art. 17 to exercise powers necessary "for the exercise of its jurisdiction and the enforcement of its lawful orders..." In my view, the trial court did not abuse that discretion under the facts presented. Defendant's rights can be safeguarded by the right to reasonable surrebuttal in accordance with La. C.E. 611, and the trial court is well equipped, without this Court's intervention and micromanagement, to conduct the proceedings in an "orderly and expeditious manner" as required by article 17.

Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

I strongly disagree with this Court's denial of Defendant's application for a supervisory writ in this capital case. Defendant seeks a reversal of the trial court's ruling which denies him the right to present his evidence first on eleven (11) motions for which he has the burden of proof. In my view, the trial court abused its discretion under the guise of La. C. Cr. P. art. 17, which allows the court "to so control the proceedings that justice is done." Justice is not done when a defendant in a death-penalty case is not allowed to fully present his defense.

In this case, the trial court refused to allow the Defendant, on motions filed by him and upon which he has the burden of proof, to call his own witnesses first, with cross examination by the State, and then *1176to be able to question these witnesses again in rebuttal. This deviation from traditional trial procedure allows the State, not the court and surely not the defendant, to control the proceedings. The State, on a motion not filed by it, but by the Defendant, upon which that Defendant has the burden of proof, will have the right and opportunity to call whatever witness it wishes first and to question that witness on whatever it wishes first, all to the disadvantage of the Defendant. And, just what specifically is Defendant's right of rebuttal in this unorthodox procedure? This disrupts the orderly progression of trial to the detriment of Defendant in a capital case. Thus, Defendant has the burden, and the State runs the show. The violation of such a cardinal rule of trial procedure constitutes an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process.

I would grant this writ, reverse the trial court's ruling, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent herewith.
:1: AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION® ,.. IN GEORGIA 

TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY: 

JUNE DEEN 

Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Health 

Promotions for the 

American Lung Association in Georgia, North Carolina and 

South Carolina 

RE: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC 

HEARING 

ATLANTA, GA, AUGUST 29, 2014 

CLEAN POWER PLAN PROPOSED RULE 

My name is June Deen, I am the Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Health 

Promotions for the American Lung Association in Georgia, North Carolina and South 

Carolina. Thank you for providing an opportunity for me to speak. As many of you 

know, the Lung Association's mission is to save lives by improving lung health and 

preventing lung disease. The American Lung Association believes that we need 

strong carbon standards to protect the lung health of everyone, especially those 

who suffer from lung disease. 

Carbon pollution leads to warmer temperatures that can enhance the conditions for 

harmful air pollutants, including ozone and particle pollution. Scientists warn that 

climate change is likely to increase the risk of unhealthy air in large parts of the 

United States, leading to more unhealthy air days than we would have otherwise. 

More pollution means more childhood asthma attacks and complications for those 

with lung disease, including increased risk of premature death. Air pollution also 

affects people with cardiovascular diseases, diabetics, and low income families. 

Children growing up where ozone levels are high may risk having lung diseases 

later in life. 

Further west, we already see the effects of devastating drought from the changes in 

weather patterns and the heat. The drought threatens human health in many 

ways. Wildfires and dust storms blow fine particles that people inhale deep into 

their lungs, triggering asthma attacks and heart attacks, and can even shorten their 

lives. People do their best to prepare for these events and to protect themselves. 

But we really need to prevent the problems in the first place, by reducing the 

carbon pollution that is changing the earth's climate. 
We are committed to fighting carbon pollution because it helps us save lives and 

improve lung health. If we follow the steps outlined in the Clean Power Plan, we 

can prevent up to 4,100 deaths in 2020-and more each year after that, avoiding 

up to 6,600 premature deaths in 2030 when all the steps are in place. We can 

prevent up to 100,000 childhood asthma attacks in 2020, rising to prevent up to 

150,000 attacks ten years later. 

We need to have a strong Clean Power Plan in place to cut carbon pollution and 

lessen the burdens on the health of millions of Americans. We urge EPA to adopt 

standards that will ensure we do as much as we can to fight these threats and 

protect public health. 

Thank you 

June Deen 

Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Health Promotions 

American Lung Association in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina 

2452 Spring Rd I Smyrna, GA 30080 

0: 770-544-0520 I C: 404-550-4956 I F: 770-319-0349 

June. Deen@lungse.org
#### Dmitry Vlandimirovich ROMANENKO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70167.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 2004.*

Decided May 13, 2004.

Samuel W. Asbury, Esq., Gresham, OR, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ZAPATA, District Judge.**

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Frank R. Zapata, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

MEMORANDUM **

Dmitry Romanenko petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ sum*148mary affirmance of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary.

Romanenko first argues that the BIA and the IJ erred in fading to consider his eligibility for Convention Against Torture relief. We disagree. Romanenko, who was represented by counsel before the BIA, failed to raise a CAT claim before that tribunal and hence failed to exhaust his remedies. *See Vargas v. U.S. Dept. I.N.S.,*831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987). Moreover, Romanenko could have sought to reopen his case before the IJ to assert his CAT claim, *see*8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2), but did not do so.

Romanenko next argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s decision without opinion. This argument is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, there is no harm to Romanenko in the BIA’s affirmance without opinion because, where the BIA does this, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency action. *Id.*at 848.

Finally, pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the temporary stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, *nunc pro tunc,*to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. Romanenko will have three days after the issuance of the mandate to depart voluntarily.

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1


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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Americold Realty Trust (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fred Boehler, President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: March 29, 2018





/s/ Fred BoehlerFred BoehlerPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee