alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John H. Diver, Appellant, v. London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Company of Liverpool, England, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Haight, J.
INVOICE

NINTH COURT OF APPEALS

09-17-00468-CV

Alfonso Vega

v.

Vondia Vega

No. 17-04-04179-CV IN 418TH DISTRICT COURT, MONTGOMERY

COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES STATUS BY

Filing $205.00 NOT PAID JOHN M. MCDERMOTT

Balance of costs owing to the Ninth Court of Appeals, Beaumont, Texas: $205.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, CAROL ANNE HARLEY, CLERK OF THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears

of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS

for the Ninth District of Texas, this December 12, 2017.

CAROL ANNE HARLEY

CLERK OF THE COURT

PLEASE MAKE PAYMENT THROUGH http://efiletexas.gov

or

by mail: NINTH COURT OF APPEALS

 1001 PEARL STREET, SUITE 330

 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77701

FILE COPY
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 1 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 2 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 3 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 4 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 5 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 6 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 7 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2353    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:31:36    Page 8 of8
Exhibit 11


                             CityFed Financial Corp.
              Statement Regarding the Computation of Per Share Loss




                                               Nine Months Ended
                                                 September 30,

                                               2000          1999
                                               ----          ----
 Computation of Loss Per Share:


 Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding                             18,715,609    18,715,609


 Loss applicable to  common stock:(1)


  From continuing operations               $(6,361,000)  $(6,273,000)
                                           ============  ============

  From discontinued operations             $(1,037,000)  $          -
                                           ============  ============

  Net loss                                 $(7,398,000)  $(6,273,000)
                                           ============  ============


 Basic loss per share:


  From continuing operations               $    (0.34)   $     (0.34)
                                           ===========   ============

  From discontinued operations             $    (0.06)   $          -
                                           ===========   ============
  Net loss                                 $    (0.40)   $     (0.34)
                                           ===========   ============


                            -----------------------
(1)  Losses applicable to Common Stock are net of preferred stock dividends
for the nine months ended September 30, 2000 and 1999 in the amount of
$6,476,000.
**
**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 2020-4(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: Wells FargoBank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. 

 
By: /s/ Corey HenryName: Corey HenryTitle: 
President and Chief Executive Officer

Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Date: March 29, 2024**
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                April __, 2008                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                     |
| /s/                F. E. FORSTER III                                     |
| F.                E. Forster III, Chief Executive                Officer |

----
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATE 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 on Form 10-Q of Commercial Federal
Corporation (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 14, 2002 (the "Report"), I, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that, to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                           By:  /s/ William A. Fitzgerald
                               -----------------------------------
                               William A. Fitzgerald
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 14, 2002
Same Term.

*Before the same Justices.*

#### Vallance vs. Everts.

The offence of selling spirituous liquors, in violation of the excise laws, may be established by circumstantial evidence. And the fact that the defendant kept liquor in his grocery store, to sell, is competent evidence for that purpose in an action against him to recover the penalty.

This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff as overseer of the poor, to recover penalties incurred by the defendant for violations of the excise laws. The pleadings were similar to those in *Vallance*v. *King, {ante, p.*548.) The cause was tried at the *Cayuga*circuit in March, 1847, before Whiting, Cir. Judge. The plaintiff introduced as a witness David Everts, jun. and asked him the following question: “ Did the defendant keep liquors of different kinds in his grocery, to sell?” This question was objected to by the defendant’s counsel as improper, and the objection was sustained by the court, and the evidence excluded. The plaintiff excepted, and the jury having found a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff, for this and other reasons not necessary to be mentioned, filed a bill of exceptions, and moved for a new trial,

*David Wright,*for the plaintiff.

*Clark*& *Underwood,*for the defendant.

*554
      *By the Court,*

Gridley, J.

In this case it is impossible to avoid the granting of a new trial. The judge erred in rejecting the question “whether the defendant kept liquor in his grocery to sell.” The offence of selling spirituous liquors in violation of the excise laws may be established by circumstam tial evidence, and the fact offered to be proved and rejected, was competent in that aspect of the case. The like kind of evidence is constantly received upon trials, even for capital off fences. The very point has, however, been decided in the case of *Hulbert*v. *The People.*The decision was pronounced in January, 1846, and is not reported. I have, however, perused the opinion of the late Chief Justice Bronson, and it adjudicates the very question presented in this cause for our determination. There must be a new trial, with costs to abide the event. And whatever questions arise out of the repeal of the act of 1845, must be settled in another place; they cannot be disposed of on this motion.

New trial granted.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 13, 2022

No. 04-22-00369-CV

Lavelle BROWN, Kathia Viquez and Viquez Realty, LLC,

Appellant/Cross- Appellee,

v.

Krista GILMORE

Appellee/Cross- Appellant,

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV00936A

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The parties have filed a Joint Motion to Abate Consideration of Cross-Appellant’s 

Appeal, arguing that because this court’s determination of appellant’s issues “will necessarily 

impact the outcome of cross-appellant’s appeal,” this court should abate consideration of crossappellant’s appeal and extend the deadline for cross-appellant’s brief to thirty days following this 

court’s determination of appellant’s appeal. The parties’ motion is DENIED. What the parties 

describe is true in all cross-appeals, and this court does not believe that abatement will serve the 

conservation of judicial resources.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of September, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Thomas Murphy. Appellant.

Judgment and conviction affirmed and. proceedings remitted to the Court of Sessions of Monroe coitnty. Opinion by

Haight, J.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28022-28023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11891]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank

[[Page 28023]]

indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at 
the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express 
their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 
U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a 
nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of 
the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the 
BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information 
on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National 
Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 11, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Connemara Bancorp, Inc., Dallas, Texas; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of First Amherst Bancshares, Inc., 
Amherst, Texas, and indirectly acquire First National Bank, Amherst, 
Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 13, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-11891 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.02

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
333-99777 and No. 333-99777-01 of Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited
Partnership of our report dated January 31, 2003, with respect to the Individual
and Combined Financial Statements of The Woodlands Development Company, L.P.,
The Woodlands Commercial Properties, L.P., and The Woodlands Operating Company,
L.P., included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Houston, Texas
March 10, 2004
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000104 02-MAR-2012 09:37 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000104 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I CLYDE MITSURU HAYAKAWA, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE RANDAL K.O. LEE, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. NO. 11-1-0033) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Clyde Hayakawa's petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that, in S.P.P. No. 11-1-0033, Clyde Mitsuru Hayakawa v. State of Hawai ' i , respondent State of Hawai ' i filed an answer to the HRPP Rule 40 petition on December 1, 2011. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternativemeans to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. 1 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, March 2, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

1 It appears that petitioner may not have been served with the answer to the Rule 40 petition filed by respondent State of Hawai ' i on December 1, 2011 in S.P.P. No. 11-1-0033. If so, the respondent judge shall direct the State of Hawai ' i to serve the answer on petitioner in accordance with HRPP 49. 2
BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

 

5REHUW$-XOLDQ6%1

&HFLO\$'XPDV6%1

%$.(5	+267(7/(5//3

%DWWHU\6WUHHW6XLWH

6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$

7HOHSKRQH

)DFVLPLOH

(PDLOUMXOLDQ#EDNHUODZFRP

(PDLOFGXPDV#EDNHUODZFRP

(ULF(6DJHUPDQ6%1

/DXUHQ7$WWDUG6%1

%$.(5	+267(7/(5//3

:LOVKLUH%OYG6XLWH

/RV$QJHOHV&$

7HOHSKRQH

)DFVLPLOH

(PDLOHVDJHUPDQ#EDNHUODZFRP

(PDLOODWWDUG#EDNHUODZFRP

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants 

81,7('67$7(6%$1.5837&<&2857

1257+(51',675,&72)&$/,)251,$

6$1)5$1&,6&2',9,6,21

,QUH

3*	(&25325$7,21

DQG

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&

&203$1<   'HEWRUV

Ƒ$IIHFWV3*	(&RUSRUDWLRQ

Ƒ$IIHFWV3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

Ŷ$IIHFWVERWK'HEWRUV

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

%DQNUXSWF\&DVH

1R'0

&KDSWHU

/HDG&DVH

-RLQWO\$GPLQLVWHUHG

25'(5*5$17,1*7+((;3$57(

$33/,&$7,212)7+(2)),&,$/

&200,77((2)7257&/$,0$176

38568$1772)('(5$/58/(2)

%$1.5837&<352&('85()25

25'(56$87+25,=,1*

352'8&7,212)'2&80(176

7KH&RXUWKDYLQJUHYLHZHGWKH([3DUWH$SSOLFDWLRQRIWKH2IILFLDO&RPPLWWHHRI7RUW

&ODLPDQWV 3XUVXDQWWR%DQNUXSWF\5XOHIRU2UGHUV$XWKRUL]LQJ3URGXFWLRQRI'RFXPHQWV

ILOHGRQ0D\DQGDIWHUGXHGHOLEHUDWLRQDQGVXIILFLHQWFDXVHDSSHDULQJWKHUHIRU

Signed and Filed: June 12, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

June 12, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2504 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 15:59:07 Page 1 of

 2
























































BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

 

,7,6+(5(%<25'(5('7+$7

 7KH$SSOLFDWLRQLVJUDQWHGDVSURYLGHGKHUHLQ

 7KH'HEWRUVDUHGLUHFWHGWRSURGXFHWRWKH7&&WKHIROORZLQJGRFXPHQWVDQG

LQIRUPDWLRQZLWKRXWVHUYLFHRIDVXESRHQDILIWHHQGD\VIURPHQWU\RIWKLV2UGHU

D &RPSOHWHFRSLHVRIDOOLQVXUDQFHSROLFLHVLQFOXGLQJDQ\DQGDOOGHFODUDWLRQV

GHILQLWLRQVH[KLELWVHQGRUVHPHQWVULGHUVH[FOXVLRQVDQGDPHQGPHQWVWKDWKDYH

SURYLGHGRUPD\SURYLGHFRYHUDJHIRUDQ\FODLPDJDLQVWWKH'HEWRUVDULVLQJIURP

RUFRQFHUQLQJWKH1RUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD:LOGILUHV31RUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD:LOGILUHV ́

VKDOOKDYHWKHVDPHPHDQLQJDVXVHGE\WKH'HEWRUVLQWKH%DU'DWH0RWLRQ>'NW

@SS

E &RPSOHWHFRSLHVRIDOOLQVXUDQFHSROLFLHVLQFOXGLQJDQ\DQGDOOGHFODUDWLRQV

GHILQLWLRQVH[KLELWVHQGRUVHPHQWVULGHUVH[FOXVLRQVDQGDPHQGPHQWVWKDWKDYH

 SURYLGHGRUPD\SURYLGHFRYHUDJHIRUDQ\FODLPDJDLQVWWKH'HEWRUVDULVLQJ

IURPRUFRQFHUQLQJWKH*KRVW6KLS)LUH3*KRVW6KLS)LUH ́VKDOOPHDQWKHILUH

WKDWRFFXUUHGRQ'HFHPEHUDWWKHEXLOGLQJNQRZQDVWKH3*KRVW6KLS ́

ORFDWHGDWVW$YHQXHLQWKH&LW\RI2DNODQG&RXQW\RI$ODPHGD6WDWHRI

&DOLIRUQLD



(1'2)25'(5





Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2504 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 15:59:07 Page 2 of

 2
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 21

                            PRIMIX SOLUTIONS INC.
                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of all subsidiaries of Primix Solutions Inc., their
jurisdiction of incorporation, and the names under which they do business:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            NAME(S) UNDER WHICH
SUBSIDIARY             JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION        SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
<S>                    <C>                                  <C>
Advis, Inc.            Delaware                             Advis, Inc.

OneWave Securities     Massachusetts                        OneWave Securities
Corporation                                                 Corporation

21ST.DK A/S            Denmark                              21ST.DK A/S

Primix Sweden AB       Sweden                               Primix Sweden AB
(f/k/a Primant AB)
</TABLE>
Exhibit 33.2
                                  ------------

          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                      2
ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VIA ELECTRONIC BALLOT

AUGUST 26, 2022

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Board 

Bylaw 3.01, approves the proposed slate of candidates for appointment or reappointment to 14 

Smithsonian Institution Advisory Boards.