alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sharon Xiaorong Tang, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 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 Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. as of and for the period covered by the Report.  Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed. Dated:  August 14, 2007/s/ Sharon Xiaorong TangSharon Xiaorong Tang
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT PAUL TWEED,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-94-11-V, CA-02-86-5-1-V)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Paul Tweed, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Paul Tweed seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and

construed by the district court as a sucessive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude the district

court properly construed Tweed’s action, styled as an “Independent

Action,” as a successive § 2255 motion. For the reasons stated by

the district court, we conclude that Tweed has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

United States v. Tweed, Nos. CR-94-11-V; CA-02-86-5-1-V (W.D.N.C.

July 31, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Richard Cussack, Respondent, v. Homer *W.*Rightmeyer and Others, Appellants.

Order affirmed.
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2023-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofJuly 26, 2023, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2023-3 and Citibank, N.A. (the “Agreement”) during the period thatis the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
By: 
/s/ Randy Bockenstedt
Name: Randy BockenstedtTitle: Senior Vice President, CollectionsDate: March 29, 2024By: 
/s/ Jonathan Watson
Name: Jonathan WatsonTitle: Executive Vice President, TreasurerDate: March 29, 2024**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7648

STEVE CARL CHADWICK-EL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-

cv-01490-RWT) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Steve Carl Chadwick-el, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Steve Carl Chadwick-el seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action 

against Verizon Wireless. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 25, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on or about 

August 11, 2009.* Thus, the notice of appeal was filed outside 

the thirty-day appeal period. Because Chadwick-el failed to 

 

*

 Because Chadwick-el is incarcerated, he is deemed to have 

filed the notice of appeal the date he deposited it in the 

prison mail system. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). However, the 

notice of appeal does not contain a declaration or notarized 

statement reflecting that date, as required by Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(c)(1), and the post-mark date is 

illegible. In determining the filing date, we have afforded 

Chadwick-el the presumption that he tendered the notice of 

appeal on August 11, 2009, five business days prior to this 

court’s August 18, 2009 receipt thereof. 
3 

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


July 5, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 249


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on July 1, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms and
Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the
evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-211086) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
Slip Op. 08-04 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

____________________________________ 

 : 

SKF USA, INC, SKF FRANCE S.A., : 

and SARMA, : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : Before: WALLACH, Judge 

 v. : Court No.: 03-00490 

 : 

UNITED STATES, : 

 : 

 Defendant, : 

 : 

 and : 

 : 

TIMKEN U.S. CORPORATION, : 

 : 

 Defendant-Intervenor. : 

___________________________________ : 

JUDGMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH MANDATE

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit having issued a mandate on 

13 November 2007, in SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, Appeal No. 07-1039, vacating this 

court’s decision at Slip Op. 06-133 (September 1, 2006), it is hereby 

 ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above entitled case be and hereby is 

DISMISSED as moot. 

 __/s/ Evan J. Wallach_________ 

 Evan J. Wallach, Judge 

Dated: January 14, 2008 

 New York, New York
# I«*f«*/V ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 02-13-00491-CR 

## OFFENSE: 29.03 Dennis RickJohnson v. The State 

## STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Tarrant COA DISPOSITION: DISM TRIAL COURT: 371st District Court 

### DATE: 11/14/13 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1313690D



## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Dennis RickJohnson v. The State of STYLE: Texas CCA#: 

# it»q-/«j PRO SB FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# %6FMft)* oiliyljwir DATE: JUDGE: 

# (Oa UaAs**^ Petition 

## CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR


### ELECTRONIC RECORD
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000581 09-AUG-2016 08:15 AM
Email: myersm@ballardspahr.com

October 10, 2022 /s/ Michael S. Myers

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13054 Filed: 10/10/22 Entered: 10/10/22 15:20:51 Page 1

of 1
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3492 Filed: 08/09/19 Entered: 08/09/19 13:36:43 Page 1 of

1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5272 

To prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not 

lawfully present in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2014 

Mrs. BLACKBURN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action 

for aliens not lawfully present in the United States, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO DEFERRED AC4 TION. 

5 Unless explicitly authorized by law, no agency or in6 strumentality of the Federal Government may issue after 

7 July 30, 2014, guidance, memorandums, regulations, poli8 cies, or other similar instruments the effect of which is— 

9 (1) to modify, in any manner that would ex10 pand the number of aliens eligible for deferred acVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 Jul 31, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5272.IH H5272

jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5272 IH

1 tion, the Executive memorandum dated June 15, 

2 2012, concerning deferred action for childhood arriv3 als; 

4 (2) to newly authorize deferred action for any 

5 class of aliens not in lawful immigration status in 

6 the United States; or 

7 (3) to newly authorize any alien to work in the 

8 United States if such alien— 

9 (A) was not lawfully admitted into the 

10 United States in compliance with the immigra11 tion laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of 

12 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

13 1101(a)(17))), except that this subparagraph 

14 shall not apply to an alien who is paroled under 

15 section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Na16 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) or per17 mitted to land temporarily as an alien crewman; 

18 and 

19 (B) is not lawfully present in the United 

20 States. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEP 2 6 2022
BPQWN CLE F 4iCu iv
D UTY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 84820 

# MED SHAWN TOSH HARTZELL, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSINGAPPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 1U, Q-17A Thisisan appealfrom ajudgment ofconviction. Tenthjudicial

District Court, Churchill County; Thomas L. Stockard, Judge.

Deputy Attorney General Jaimie Stilz has filed a notice of appearance ascounsel for respondent. The clerk ofthis court shall add Ms. Stilz as counsel ofrecord for respondent.

Preliminary review of this appeal revealed a potential jurisdictional defect. The district court entered thejudgment ofconviction
on April 7, 2022. Thus, appellant's notice of appeal was due to be filed in the district court by May 9, 2022. See NRAP 4(b)(1)(A) (providing that a notice ofappeal must generally "be filed with the district court clerk within 30 days after the entry ofthejudgment or orderbeing appealed"). However, the notice ofappeal was not filed in the district court until June 2, 2022, 24 days after expiration ofthe 30-day appeal period.

Appellant dated his notice of appeal May 5, 2022. Pursuant to NRAP 4(d), ifappellant delivered his notice ofappeal to a prison official for mailing on or before May 9, 2022, and utilized the notice-of-appeal log or other system designed for legal mail, his notice ofappeal would be deemed timely filed. Because this court could not determine from the documents before it whether the notice of appeal should be deemed timely, this court



## z oc:16orderedthe attorney generaltoobtain and transmit to the clerkofthiscourt

certified copies of the notice of appeal log maintained at the prison indicatingthe actualdate uponwhich appellant deliveredto aprisonofficial his notice of appeal.

The attorney general has now provided this court with a response and an affidavit from the law librarian and custodian ofrecords at Lovelock Correctional Center. These documents indicate Lovelock Correctional Center did not maintain a notice of appeal log froin July 2021 through July 2022, but did maintain an "other system designed for legal mail," namely a brass slip logand outgoingmail logduringthat time period. However, there were no entries by appellant on those logs from May 2022 toJune 2, 2022. Accordingly, theJune 2, 2022, date controls and appellant's notice of appeal was untimely filed, thus this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994) ("[A]n untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court."). We therefore

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

, J.

Silver 

# pìu J. Cadish Pickering

SUPREME COURT

OE NEVADA

Pia7A cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge

Shawn Tosh Hartzell Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Churchill County Clerk

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CESAR ANTONIO BECERRA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30050 

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00227-MO-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2019

Portland, Oregon

Before: GRABER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO,** District 

Judge.

Cesar Antonio Becerra moved to suppress evidence seized during the 

February 25, 2014 arrest, on the theory that the police lacked probable cause. The 

district court denied that motion. Becerra was eventually found guilty of all the 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

FILED

SEP 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

charges related to the February 2014 arrest. He now appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the district court’s denial of the 

motion to suppress.

“Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably 

trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe 

that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested.” 

United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007). Here the police 

watched the informant set up a drug transaction with Becerra via text message. 

Moreover, that informant, who was known to the police and who had provided 

reliable information in the past, told the police that he previously had purchased 

heroin from Becerra at the location where Becerra planned to meet the informant. 

Becerra was then followed to that very location. “Because the [informant] 

correctly predicted the suspect’s movement, a police officer could reasonably 

conclude that there was some degree of reliability to the [informant’s] claim that 

the suspect was engaged in criminal activity.” Foster v. City of Indio, 908 F.3d 

1204, 1214 (9th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). A reasonable person with the information 

in the Portland police’s possession would believe that Becerra was in the process 

of committing a crime, namely the possession of heroin with intent to distribute.

Becerra also argues that at trial the district court erred by failing to instruct 

the jurors orally as to the law they were required to apply during deliberations. In 
3

a concurrently filed opinion, we reverse and remand for a new trial because of that 

error.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RICHARD M. CORATELLO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-368 

[May 24, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael A. Usan, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 08-19666CF10A.

Richard M. Coratello, Lake City, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

Northern District of California

In re:

Debtor(s)

Bankruptcy No.:

R.S. No.:

Hearing Date:

Time:

Relief From Stay Cover Sheet

Instructions: Complete caption and Section A for all motions. Complete Section B for mobile homes, motor vehicles, and personal property.

Complete Section C for real property. Utilize Section C as necessary. If moving party is not a secured creditor, briefly summarize the nature

of the motion in Section D.

(A) Date Petition Filed: Chapter:

Prior hearings on this obligation: Last Day to File §523/§727 Complaints:

(B) Description of personal property collateral (e.g. 1983 Ford Taurus):

Secured Creditor [ ] or lessor [ ]

Fair market value: $________________ Source of value:__________________

Contract Balance: $________________ Pre-Petition Default: $_______________

Monthly Payment: $________________ No. of months: ___________

Insurance Advance: $________________ Post-Petition Default: $_______________

No. of months: ___________

 (C) Description of real property collateral (e.g. Single family residence, Oakland, CA):

Fair market value: $_______________ Source of value:_______________ If appraisal, date:___________

Moving Party's position (first trust deed, second, abstract, etc.):

Approx. Bal. $_______________ Pre-Petition Default: $_______________

As of (date): _______________ No. of months: ____________

Mo. payment: $_______________ Post-Petition Default: $_______________

Notice of Default (date): __________ No. of months: ____________

Notice of Trustee's Sale: __________ Advances Senior Liens: $_______________

Specify name and status of other liens and encumbrances, if known (e.g. trust deeds, tax liens, etc.):

Position Amount Mo. Payment Defaults

1st Trust Deed:_____________________ $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

2nd Trust Deed: ____________________ $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

_________________________________:

_________________________________:

_________________________________:

(Total) $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

(D) Other pertinent information:

______________________________________

Signature

______________________________________

Print or Type Name

Attorney for___________________________________

CANB Documents Northern District of California 

Dated:

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 19-30089(DM)

11/13/2019

10:00 am

01/29/2019 11

N/A 06/29/2019

Relief is sought as to litigation against the Debtor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California, Case No. 3-15-CV-02383. 

10/18/2019

LEAH E. CAPRITTA 

TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322-5 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 1

of 1
#### Frederick E. Wilson v. Fanny N. Dresser et al.

*Seal Property—Partition—Freehold—Jurisdiction of Appellate Court.*

This court will not consider a controversy involving a freehold.

[Opinion filed February 10, 1891.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Egbert Jamieson, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Thornton *&*Chancellor, for appellant.

Mr. Augustus N. Gage, for appellees.

Moran, P. J.

Appellee filed her bill for partition of certain real estate against certain persons whom she alleged to be owners of the fee simple, in common with herself. Thereupon appellant applied to the court, stating a claim of interest in the land, and asking to be made a party to the suit. This was done, and thereupon appellant filed a plea setting up a title acquired by certain conveyances and by twenty years’ adverse possession of the land; also color of title and payment of taxes for seven consecutive years.

The question thus presented for determination was whether appellant or appellees held the title to the real estate in controversy. Such a question very clearly involves a freehold, and the motion of appellee to dismiss this appeal which was taken and reserved to the hearing, must now be granted.

The case could not be decided by the court in favor of either party to the record without disposing of the freehold *608estate set up by each one. LeMoyne v. Harding, 132 Ill. 79.

The appeal will therefore be dismissed at appellant’s costs.

*Appeal dismissed.*