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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven C. Bierman, 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 2010-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 party: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.

 

 

March 29, 2011

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman                                          |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman                                              |
|   | Title: | President   (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
SABAL CHASE HARMONY HOUSING LLC d/b/a Sabal Chase Apts., Appellant, v. TOKIO MARINE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2107

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit  23.3

CONSENT  OF  INDEPENDENT  AUDITOR

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in this Registration
Statement  on  Form  S-8 of Xtreme Companies, Inc. of our report dated March 17,
2004  included  in  Xtreme Companies, Inc's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2003, and to all references to our firm included in this
Registration  Statement.

/s/  Michael  Johnson  &  Co,  LLC
Michael  Johsnon  &  Co,  LLC
Denver,  CO
April  14,  2004
Cay Adam RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2814

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Cay Adam Rivera, Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although Appellant's initial motion raised seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant is only appealing the trial court's summary denial of claims (1), (5), and (6). We affirm the trial court's denial of claim (1) without further discussion.

The facts relevant to the remaining issues on this appeal concern Appellant's ability to access a safe containing illegal contraband that was the subject of the charges brought to trial. The evidence established that the safe was accessible via a key and a keypad. Appellant was found in possession of a key to the safe. The State provided testimony that the safe's keypad was not functioning properly at the time of the offense.

In claim (5), Appellant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not hire a safe expert to provide testimony that the keypad was functioning properly thereby allowing others to access the safe. In claim (6), Appellant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to hire a private investigator to show that he did not reside in the residence and that other people had access to the safe. The trial court summarily denied both claims, finding that trial counsel's decisions were based on trial strategy.

Although the trial court cites trial strategy as justifying the summary denial, it is impossible to determine from the record and without an evidentiary hearing whether trial counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy. Moreover, the records do not conclusively refute Appellant's claims. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to summarily deny claims (5) and (6). *See**Reynolds v. State*, 227 So.3d 220, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("Generally, a trial court may not summarily deny a rule 3.850 motion on the ground that trial counsel made a reasonable tactical decision, unless 'it is so obvious from the face of the record that trial counsel's strategy not to present a voluntary intoxication defense is very clearly a tactical decision well within the discretion of counsel.' " (quoting *Hannon v. State*, 941 So.2d 1109, 1138 (Fla. 2006) ) ).

We, therefore, reverse and remand the summary denial of claims (5) and (6) for *400the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting these claims, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. *See**Hannon*, 941 So.2d at 1138 ; *Reynolds*, 227 So.3d at 221.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED with Instructions. ORFINGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OraSure Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald H. Spair, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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 the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ronald H. Spair                               
|Ronald H. Spair                                   
|Chief Operating Officer andChief Financial Officer
|                                                  
|November 6, 2008
# C_2023015EN.01000901.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-607/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 26(1)(b) - Supply of services free of charge - Award of retail vouchers free of charge to staff of the taxable person’s business as part of an employee recognition and reward scheme - Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration - Scope - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2023/C 15/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting, for a business, in offering retail vouchers to its employees, in the context of a programme set up by that business, designed to recognise and reward the most deserving and high-performing employees, does not fall within its scope.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---
# C_2021329EN.01002101.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Skyliners v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLINERS)

(Case T-15/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SKYLINERS - Earlier EU word marks SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 41(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Entitlement to file the opposition)

(2021/C 329/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska, lawyer, and A. Brackenbury, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 (Case R 798/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Skyliners.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2019 (Case R 798/2018-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2019 (Case R 798/2018-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO and Sky Ltd to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay jointly those incurred by Skyliners GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO and Sky Ltd to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay jointly those incurred by Skyliners GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2837EM

_____________ Sandra A. Hayes, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr.; United States * Postal Service; American Postal * [UNPUBLISHED] Workers Union, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: March 18, 1999

Filed: March 29, 1999

_____________ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Sandra Hayes appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service and dismissing Hayes's claims against the AmericanPostal Workers Union. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs , we conclude the district court's rulings were correct, and an extended discussion is not warranted. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2–

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000156 13-APR-2015 09:11 AM
1456.

#### Georgia Coast & Piedmont Railroad Company *v.*Durrence & Sands.

Action for damages, from city court of Eeidsville — Judge Morgan. September 16, 1908.

Powell, J.

1. A petition which shows that the plaintiffs were lumber manufacturers, with their plant located on the line of the defendant railroad company; that they sold a bill of lumber to one of their customers at a destination beyond the defendant’s line, but on a connecting line; that the defendant had been accustomed to receive ears to that destination and promised to furnish cars for this shipment, but, after the lumber' had been placed on the side-track, arbitrarily and in bad faith refused to furnish them, whereby the plaintiff' suffered a loss by reason of the-lack of a local market and the absence of other shipping facilities, sets forth a valid cause of action. *Chatta. So. R. Co.,*v. *Thompson,*133 Ga. 127 (65 S. E. 285); *Durden*v. *So. Ry. Co.,*2 *Ga. App.*66 (58 S. E. 299).

2. In a case of the kind indicated in the previous headnote, where the original petition proceeded on the theory that there had been a total loss of the lumber by reason of its being left at an inaccessible point without shipping facilities, an amendment setting up that, since the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs had been able to sell the lumber at a reduced price, and decreasing accordingly the amount of damages claimed, is not ■subject to the objection that.it sets up a new cause of action.

3. 'The act approved August 23, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 120), known as “the reciprocal-demurrage act,” is applicable only where the gist of the plaintiff’s claim is based on the violation of the carrier’s public duty, irrespective of contract. *Southern Railway Co.*v. *Melton,*133 *Ga.*(65 S. E. 665).

*i.*Though a railroad company in this State, as to intrastate shipments, is not compelled to accept shipments to points beyond the terminus of its own line, yet it may contract to do so, or may by custom bind itself to do so. It can not grant this accommodation to one customer and refuse it to others standing in the same relation; as to do so would bo an unjust discrimination.

5. A promise by a conductor of a freight-train to furnish cars for a particular shipment is enforceable against the railway company, whore it. appears that he had been entrusted by the company generally with this, power and had been accustomed to exercise it.

6. The evidence fully sustained the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*

*616Argued December 10, 1908. —

Decided September 30, 1909

*Hitch & Denmark,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. T. Burkhalter,*contra.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00832-CR

Adam Perkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 61479, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Adam Perkins filed an attempted notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction for

indecency with a child by contact. However, the trial court certified that: (1) this is a plea bargain

case and Perkins has no right of appeal, and (2) Perkins waived the right of appeal.

The appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed

Filed: January 25, 2013

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 99.1

                     Form of Section 906 Certification

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                    AND
                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Whitelight Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003
(the "Report"), I, Eric Chess Bronk, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company.

/s/ Eric Chess Bronk
Eric Chess Bronk
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  May 14, 2003
# C_2022257EN.01003002.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — OC v Commission

(Case T-384/20) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - OLAF investigation - Press release - Processing of personal data - Presumption of innocence - Confidentiality of OLAF investigations - Right to sound administration - Proportionality - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2022/C 257/39)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: OC (represented by: P. Yatagantzidis and V. Cheirdaris, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and T. Adamopoulos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the publication of OLAF press release No 13/2020 of 5 May 2020, in that it unlawfully processed her personal data and conveyed false information about her.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders OC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Damon L. PATTERSON

NO. 2018-KO-0611

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Motion denied. Writ denied.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-50752 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Timothy Rey Korteland, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:22-CR-621-1 

______________________________ 

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Timothy Rey Korteland pleaded guilty to possessing child 

pornography, and the district court sentenced him within the guidelines 

range to 78 months of imprisonment, followed by 15 years of supervised 

release. On appeal, he contends that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the district court (1) did not account for his history and 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 11, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-50752 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024
No. 23-50752 

2 

characteristics and (2) clearly erred in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors. 

Here, the district court considered Korteland’s mitigating evidence at 

the sentencing hearing regarding his autism diagnosis and explained why it 

was unpersuaded that Korteland’s diagnosis warranted a downward 

variance. Specifically, the nature and circumstances of the offense gave the 

court “grave concern.” Based on our review of the record, we conclude that 

the district court did not clearly err in balancing the § 3553(a) factors, and we 

reject Korteland’s contention that the district court failed to account for his 

history and characteristics. See United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214-15 

(5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-50752 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2024
Terre G. MATRANGA, John P. Greathouse, Jr., Gina F. Greathouse and James E. Greathouse v. PARISH ANESTHESIA OF JEFFERSON, LLC, Monica Wilkinson, CRNA, Christopher Cougle, M.D., and Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company

NO. 2018-C-1561

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Vanquishing the V/PD

1

st Quarter 2017

A quarterly publication from the

Safety Section

Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division

Western-Pacific Region

This publication is directed primarily towards airport management to be disseminated to 

all levels of personnel working at your airfield. Vanquishing the V/PD can be 

accomplished through a solid partnership between the FAA and airport management. The 

responsibility of making sure that the proper safeguards are in place; however, lies 

squarely on the shoulders of airport management. Please use this information and all that 

follows as a guide by which to provide a safer environment at your airfield.

FAA Airports Division wishes all of the airports in the Western-Pacific Region (AWP) a 

Happy and safe New Year. 

As of December 29, 2016, AWP CY 2016 V/PD statistics were as follows:

Runway 

Incursions

Surface 

Incidents

VPD Totals

139 Airports 17 12 29

GA Airports 24 16 40

Totals 41 28 69

 In calendar year 2016 the Western Pacific Region experienced a total of 69 V/PDs 

(23% fewer than CY 2015). 

 In calendar year 2016 V/PDs were 27% lower at 139 airports as compared to GA 

airports. In calendar year 2015 V/PDs were 31% lower at 139 airports as 

compared to GA airports. 
 In CY 2016 there was a 24% decrease in V/PD runway incursions (RIs) as 

compared to CY 2015 (54 vs. 41). 

 In calendar year 2016 total runway incursions (RIs) were 32% higher than surface 

incidents (SIs). In CY 2015 the RIs were 37% higher than SIs. 

Yearly total V/PD Chart (Excluding reclassified incidents but including aircraft taxied 

by non-licensed individuals)

CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016

139 Airports 50 36 29

GA Airports 51 52 40

Totals 101 88 69

 

Lastly, there were no Category A or B V/PD runway incursions in the Western-Pacific 

Region during CY 2016.

In summary, we can all celebrate that total AWP V/PDs continue to show a huge three 

year decline. V/PDs have decreased 32% from CY 2014 through CY 2016. 

Congratulations and Happy New Year!

Column written by:

Steven Oetzell

Lead Airport Certification Safety Inspector, AWP-620.6

Reproductions of this, past and subsequent issues of Vanquishing the VPD are available 

on FAAWebsite: http://www.faa.gov/airports/western_pacific/newsletter/
# C_2023063EN.01003201.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Commission

(Case T-138/20) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2092 - Definitive countervailing duty - Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 - Price undercutting - Price pressure - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2016/1037 - Causal link - Article 3(2) and Article 6(d) of Regulation 2016/1037 - Benefit - Article 3(1)(a)(i) and (2) of Regulation 2016/1037 - Direct transfer of funds - Article 7 of Regulation 2016/1037 - Calculation of the amount of the benefit - Article 8(1) and (8) of Regulation 2016/1037 - Threat of material injury - Rights of the defence)

(2023/C 63/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Ciliandra Perkasa (West Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis and E. Rogiest, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Kienapfel, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-S. Dibling and L. Amiel, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2092 of 28 November 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia (OJ 2019 L 317, p. 42), in so far as that regulation concerns it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PT Ciliandra Perkasa to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PT Ciliandra Perkasa to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---