alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-08-00154-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_______________________________________________________ __ 

EDDIE GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Eddie Garcia, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss

his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and DISMISS the appeal. Having dismissed
2

the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our

mandate will issue forthwith. Pending motions, if any, are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R.APP.P. 47.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 12th day of June, 2008.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, 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 Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2020-2(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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. Based onmy knowledge and 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 inall material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis 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 otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells FargoBank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 29, 2024**
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, 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 Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2022-6(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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. Basedon my knowledge and 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 inall material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis 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 otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank,N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 29, 2024**
Exhibit 32CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of SS&C Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: April 2, 2007 By:  /s/ William C. Stone    William C. Stone    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### Thomas Rowan, Respondent, v. Caroline Peck, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion..

Hirschberg, Burr, Thomas, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concurred.
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 the Amended Annual Report of Apex Silver Mines Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/JEFFREY G. CLEVENGERJeffrey G. Clevenger
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 23, 2006 | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/GERALD J. MALYSGerald J. Malys
Chief Financial Officer
October 23, 2006                         | 

---



QuickLinks
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4926 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate a segment of Interstate Route 35 in the State 

of Minnesota as the ‘‘James L. Oberstar Memorial Highway’’. 

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


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4926 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The segment of Interstate Route 35 between milepost 

3 133 at Forest Lake, Minnesota, and milepost 259 at Du4 luth, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘James L. Oberstar Memorial Highway’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the segment 

9 of Interstate Route 35 referred to in section 1 shall be 

10 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James L. Oberstar Me11 morial Highway’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Olivia De Camp, Respondent, v. John J. Dempsey and another, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, upon giving the stipulation mentioned in the opinion.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2681 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2681

   To suspend temporarily the duty on stainless steel rail car body 
                                shells.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2000

 Mr. Daschle (for Mr. Breaux) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on stainless steel rail car body 
                                shells.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in the 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.xx.xx        Stainless steel   Free             No change        No change        On or before 12/
                         rail car body                                                        31/2003         ''
                         shells for                                                                            .
                         gallery type,
                         bi-level cab
                         control car
                         coaches (148-
                         passenger
                         capacity)
                         (provided for
                         in the
                         subheading
                         8607.99.1000)..

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP 

NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP

MICHAEL T. KRUEGER, SBN 262841

Michael.Krue:er ndlf.com

IVO G. DANIEL , SBN 221491

Ivo.Daniele@ndlf.com 

1333 N. California Blvd, Suite 600

Walnut Creek, California 94596

(925) 988-3200; (925) 988-3290 (Fax)

Attorneys for ERM-WEST, INC.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION, INC.,

Debtors-in-Possession.

In re

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtor-in-Possession.

CASE NO.: 19-30088 DM

CHAPTER NO.: 11

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND

REQUEST FOR NOTICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP appears as counsel in

the above-captioned cases on behalf of ERM-West, Inc., a creditor therein ("ERM").

ERM requests under Rules 2002, 3017 and 9007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure and other applicable law that an entry be made on the court matrix and that all

notices and papers filed and/or served in these cases be served upon:

3777.101 / 8018974.1

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST

FOR NOTICE Case: 19-30088 Doc# 175 Filed: 01/31/19 Entered: 01/31/19 08:58:55 Page 1 of 2
NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP 

NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP

MICHAEL T. KRUEGER, SBN 262841

Michael.Krueger _,ndlf.com 

IVO G. DANIELE, SBN 221491

Ivo.Daniele@ndlf.com 

1333 N. California Blvd, Suite 600

Walnut Creek, California 94596

(925) 988-3200; (925) 988-3290 (Fax)

This notice of appearance and request for notice is without prejudice to: ERM

rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs or recoupments, in law or in equity,

against the above-captioned debtors and any other entities either in this case or in any

other action, all of which rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs and

recoupments ERM expressly reserves; and (2) shall not be construed to submit ERM to

the jurisdiction of this Court in any matter.

Dated: January () , 2019 NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP

Michael T. Kr er

Attorneys for

ERM-West, Inc.

3777.101 / 8018974.1 -2 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST

FOR NOTICE

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 175 Filed: 01/31/19 Entered: 01/31/19 08:58:55 Page 2 of 2
#### A. Charles D’Agostino, Plaintiff, v Judith Goldberg, Defendant.

City Court of White Plains, Westchester County,

June 24, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Charles A. DAgostino, Jr.,*for plaintiff. *Sulkow, Birnbach, Jasilli & Schleifer*for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

John F. Holden, Jr., J.

In this action for attorney’s fees, plaintiff moves to strike the defendant’s answer for her failure to appear for a deposition.

The notice to take the deposition states in pertinent part that it will be taken before "Rocco D’Agostino, an employee of the attorney for the plaintiff who shall record said testimony by means of audiotaping.” Upon receiving the notice, defen*854dant’s attorney notified the plaintiff that the operator appears to be a family member of one of the parties and, therefore, is disqualified from taking the deposition. The plaintiff replied by stating that the pertinent rules specifically permit the operator to be an employee of the attorney. Plaintiff did not say that the proposed operator was not related to him but merely that he was an employee. Defendant’s attorney replied citing CPLR 3113 (a) and offering to reschedule the deposition and suggesting that it be resolved by taking a stenographic record. The plaintiff then made the motion to strike defendant’s answer and defendant cross-moved for a protective order.

In deciding this motion, the court is assuming that Rocco D’Agostino is related to the plaintiff and that the relationship is such that he would be disqualified to act as a juror. In other words, Rocco D’Agostino’s disqualification does not arise from the fact that he is an employee of the plaintiff which appears to be permitted under the rules governing videotaping but rather from the fact that he is related to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer is, therefore, denied, and the defendant is granted a protective order against the taking of her deposition by any person who would be forbidden by subdivision (a) of CPLR 3113 including but not limited to Rocco D’Agostino.
v150341_10-719 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.71.3
#### Emil C. Brendlin v. Lucius Beers.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40709

Summary Calendar

CARMEN DUGAN, Individually and as next

friend of Jane B., a minor,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS; PATRICK A. JOHNSON,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CV-187

January 3, 2003

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patrick Johnson appeals the district court’s summary judgment

ruling denying him quali fied and official immunity from the

plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. The denial of

a motion fo r summary judgment based on qualified immunity is

immediately appealable only when based on an issue of law.2

Rodriguez v. Neeley , 169 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 1999). Orders

determining “only a question of ‘evidence sufficiency,’ i.e.

, which

facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial,” are not

based on an issue of law and are not immediately appealable.

Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995).

Insofar as Johnson challenges the district court’s legal

determination that federal law clearly established that Jane B.’s

custodial status entitled her the protections of the Fourteenth and

Eighth Amendments during her stay in the S.T.A.R. boot camp, he

does so for the first time on appeal. Because refusing to address

Johnson’s qualified immunity argument on interlocutory appeal will

not result in grave injustice, we decline to address that argument

at this time. S ee Kelly v. Foti

, 77 F.3d 819, 822 (5th Cir. 1996).

Johnson’s remaining appellate arguments challenge the district

court’s determination that Jane B. adduced sufficient evidence to

raise a genui ne issue of material fact suggesting that Johnson’s

conduct was objectively unreasonable. Johnson’s remaining

arguments, therefore, do not challenge an appealable final order,

and we accordingly lack jurisdiction to review them. S ee Reyes v.

Ci ty of Richmond , 287 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 2002); C antu v.

Rocha

, 77 F.3d 795, 804 (5 th Cir. 1996) (orders premised on the

denial of qualified immunity under Texas law are appealable in

federal court to the same extent as district court orders premised

on the denial of federal law immunity).3 APPEAL DISMISSED.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 33,994 

5 AUDREY MARTINEZ,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY

8 Mary Marlowe-Sommer, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 

10 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General

11 Santa Fe, NM

12 for Appellee

13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 

14 Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 WECHSLER, Judge.

2 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to dismiss

3 the charge of commercial burglary. This appeal arises from two separate district court

4 cases that were addressed in a single plea agreement. Defendant entered a conditional

5 plea reserving for appeal the issues raised in her motion to dismiss. [DS 2; RP 64

6 (00265), RP 70 (00366)] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to reverse

7 based on our decision in State v. Archuleta, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No.

8 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-___ (No.

9 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015). The State has filed a response, objecting to our

10 notice and requesting that we hold this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with

11 a reasonable opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on

12 all pending appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta. [MIO 1-3] We have

13 provided the State with such an opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the

14 State a stay or other remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta.

15 Thus, pursuant to Rule 12-405(C) NMRA, we apply Archuleta. See Rule 12-405(C)

16 (“A petition for a writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme

17 Court order granting the petition does not affect the precedential value of an opinion

18 of the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”).
3

1 {2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed

2 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1, 3] We continue to believe that there are no

3 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in

4 Archuleta. For the reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for

5 commercial burglary.

6 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 ________________________________

8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

9 WE CONCUR:

10 ________________________________

11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

12 ________________________________

13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
NO. 07-03-0518-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JANUARY 22, 2004

	______________________________

	IN RE: HOLLIS POSEY, RELATOR

	_________________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Relator Hollis Posey seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable Abe Lopez, Judge of the 108th District Court of Potter County, to take action on a motion filed by relator in cause number 44,635-E in the 108th District Court of Potter County.  We deny the petition.		

	In his petition, relator alleges that he has filed a motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order in the referenced trial court case.  We are requested to order respondent to rule on the motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order.  

	In support of the petition for writ of mandamus, relator attached copies of (1) the State’s Motion to Dismiss and the Order dismissing the referenced cause, (2) relator’s Petition for Expunction, and (3) a letter to the Hale County District Clerk filing the petition and requesting notification of any rulings on the motion.  No other document or record of proceedings is attached to or furnished in support of the petition. 

		           When petition for writ of mandamus is made, it is the relator’s burden to show entitlement to the relief being requested.  See generally Johnson v. Fourth District Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding).  The showing must, in part, be by certified, sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and which was filed in any underlying proceeding.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a).  Relators seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus must satisfy three requirements to show entitlement to the writ: (1) a legal duty to perform; (2) a demand for performance; and (3) a refusal to act.  Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979).  A court is not required to consider a motion not called to its attention.  Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.--Houston[1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied).  Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.  See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001) (orig. proceeding).  

	Relator’s petition does not demonstrate that his motion has been called to respondent’s attention or presented to respondent for a ruling, nor does he present certified, sworn copies of material documents.  Relator has not presented a record which shows entitlement to the relief sought.

	The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								Phil Johnson

								Chief Justice