alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                            OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

      I, Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas
Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of
Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

                                  /s/ Ralph Izzo
                                --------------------------------------------
                                  RALPH IZZO
                                  Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                  May 4, 2007
**EXHIBIT 99.10**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18****of the United States Code**

I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG Power LLC.

  

|   |   |   |   |                                                             |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |        |   |   | /s/ E. James Ferland                                             |
|   |   |   |   |                                                                  |
|   |   |   |   | E. James FerlandPSEG Power LLCChief Executive OfficerMay 2, 2003 |
- 492 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 302 N ebraska R eports STATE v . SAVAGE Cite as 302 Neb. 492



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### . C ourt n ey 

### J. S avage 

### , appella n t



### . ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed March 15, 2019. No. S-17-1166.

suppleme n tal opi n io n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: S usa n 

### I

. S tro n g 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modi

fied. Motion for rehearing overruled. Darik J. Von Loh, of Hernandez Frantz, Von Loh, appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller


### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , F u n ke 

### , P

apik 

### , and F reude n berg 

### , JJ.

P er 

### C uriam



### . This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Courtney J. Savage, concerning our opinion in State v. Savage , 301 Neb. 873, 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows: In the subsection “(a) Authentication,” after the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph, we insert the following language: As for Savage’s contention that the State did not properly authenticate messages sent to him by others, we again disagree. The State was required only to introduce testi

mony sufficient to establish that the evidence was what Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 04/19/2019 09:06 AM CDT- 493 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 302 N ebraska R eports STATE v . SAVAGE Cite as 302 Neb. 492


### the State claimed it to be. The State did not claim that messages sent by others were anything more than mes

sages sent to Savage’s cell phone. See State v. Elseman , 287 Neb. 134, 841 N.W.2d 225 (2014). Savage , 301 Neb. at 885, 920 N.W.2d at 703. In subsection “(b) Hearsay,” following the second to the last paragraph, we insert the following paragraph: We also reject Savage’s argument that text messages sent to his cell phone by unidentified individuals contained inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the mat

ter asserted.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 2016). Messages sent to Savage’s cell phone were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. They were offered to prove that the statements were made. Savage , 301 Neb. at 887, 920 N.W.2d at 704. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modified



### . M otio n for reheari n g overruled



### .
gidyl-ex108_92.htm



 

Exhibit 10.8

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

 

This Fourth Amendment to Senior Secured Promissory Note by and among GI Dynamics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Payor”) and Crystal Amber Fund Limited (the “Holder”) is effective as of June 30, 2019.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the definitions ascribed thereto in that certain Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Note issued on June 15, 2017 by the Payor to the Holder, as amended December 31, 2018, March 29, 2019 and April 30, 2019 (the “Existing Note”).

WHEREAS, the Payor and the Holder desire to further amend the terms of the Existing Note as set forth herein; and

WHEREAS, Section 10(f) of the Existing Note provides that any term of the Existing Note may be amended only with the written consent of the Payor and the Holder. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Payor and the Holder, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:

1.Amendments to Existing Note.  Sections 1(b), 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) of the Existing Note are hereby amended with immediate effect to change the dates referred to in each such section (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Maturity Date) from “July 1, 2019” to “October 1, 2019”.

2.No Other Changes.  Except as specifically amended in this amendment, all other terms of the Existing Note shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

3.Counterparts.  This amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile or PDF transmission of execution copies or signature pages for this amendment shall be legal, valid and binding execution and delivery for all purposes. 

4.Governing Law.  This amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of New York, without regard to its principles of conflicts of laws.

 

[Signature Pages Immediately Follow]





 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this amendment as of the date first written above.

 


	
PAYOR:

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
GI DYNAMICS, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Scott Schorer

	
Name:
	
Scott Schorer

	
Title:
	
Chief Executive Officer




 

[Signature Page to Fourth Amendment to Promissory Note]



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this amendment as of the date first written above.

 


	
HOLDER:

	
 

	
CRYSTAL AMBER FUND LIMITED

	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
Crystal Amber Asset Management

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
(Guernsey) Limited, as Investment Manager Of

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Crystal Amber Fund Limited




 


	
By:
	
/s/ Laurence McNairn

	
Name:
	
Laurence McNairn

	
Title:
	
Director
	
 




 

[Signature Page to Fourth Amendment to Promissory Note]
SHIRLEY JENKINS, AS TAX 

COLLECTOR FOR GULF 

COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

TAUNTON TRUSS, INC. ET 

AL.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3244

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 21, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gulf County.

John L. Fishel, II, Judge.

Timothy R. Qualls and John David Holt of Young vanAssenderp, P.A., Tallahassee, 

for Appellant.

Kevin W. Cox and James M. Ervin, Jr. of Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROBERT VINCENT HARRIS,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 4:23CR3057

DETENTION ORDER

The defendant is charged with a drug crime under the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.), for which the defendant could be 

required to serve ten or more years in prison. On the government's motion, the 

court held a detention hearing under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). 

The court concludes the defendant must be detained pending trial.

There is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at court 

proceedings and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to 

believe the defendant committed a drug crime under the Controlled Substances 

Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.), for which the defendant could be required to serve 

ten or more years in prison. The defendant has not rebutted this presumption.

Based on the evidence presented and information of record, the court finds 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's release would pose a 

risk of nonappearance at court proceedings, and by clear and convincing 

evidence that the defendant's release would pose a risk of harm to the public.

Specifically, the court finds that the defendant has a criminal history of 

violating the law and court orders; violated conditions of release previously 

4:23-cr-03057-JMG-CRZ Doc # 15 Filed: 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 25
imposed by a court; has a history of harming or threatening harm to others; and 

is addicted to or abuses illegal drugs.

Conditions which restrict Defendant’s travel, personal contacts, and 

possession of drugs, alcohol, and/or firearms; require reporting, education, 

employment, or treatment; or monitor Defendant’s movements or conduct; or any 

combination of these conditions or others currently proposed or available (see 18 

U.S.C. § 3142(c)), will not sufficiently ameliorate the risks posed if the defendant 

is released.

Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or a 

designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to 

the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or held in 

custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity to consult privately with defense counsel. On order of the United 

States Court or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in 

charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to the United States 

marshal for a court appearance.

Dated May 22, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03057-JMG-CRZ Doc # 15 Filed: 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 26
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50072

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COBOS,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

MARK DONALDSON, Ector County Sheriff,

Defendant–Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CV-105

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Cobos, Texas prisoner # 2032199, moves for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50072 Document: 00513968733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
No. 16-50072

2

rights complaint. The district court denied Cobos’s motion to proceed IFP, 

certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving in this court 

for IFP status, Cobos is challenging that certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Cobos contends that the district court impermissibly denied him the 

opportunity to amend his complaint after a motion to dismiss had been filed. 

The court, however, gave Cobos the chance to present his best case; the court 

identified deficiencies in Cobos’s initial complaint, ordered him to file a more 

definite statement, then granted his motion to amend. See Eason v. Thaler, 

14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). Cobos did not seek to amend again after the motion 

to dismiss had been submitted. Moreover, Cobos complains that he was not 

served with one of the court’s orders, which, he maintains, resulted in dismissal, but he does not explain how the case would have turned out differently had 

he received proper notice.

In his motion, Cobos does not address the district court’s reasons for the

certification decision, namely, that Cobos failed to state a claim for relief and 

that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. See Baugh, 117 F.3d 

at 202. Thus Cobos has abandoned his challenge to the certification decision. 

See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987).

The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, it is 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Cobos’s motions for permission to proceed 

IFP and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED. The dismissal of the

complaint and the appeal both count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Cobos is WARNED that if he accumulates a third strike, he will not be allowed 

 Case: 16-50072 Document: 00513968733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
No. 16-50072

3

to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while incarcerated or detained in 

any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

§ 1915(g).

 Case: 16-50072 Document: 00513968733 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
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 BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2018-1 (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.
    
 BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLCBy:
          /s/ Stefan KramerName:
          Stefan KramerTitle:
          Vice President – Finance & CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40569

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CRISTHIAN OSORNIO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-210-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Cristhian Osornio has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Osornio has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 1, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40569 Document: 00514857684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2019
No. 18-40569

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-40569 Document: 00514857684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2019
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2020

No. 04-19-00835-CR

Jesus GONZALEZ-GALLEGOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR6182

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant's Motion for Late Filing of Brief is hereby GRANTED. The appellant's 

brief is deemed filed.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of September, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Kari Stefansson, ChiefExecutive Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this reportfairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report.

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)             [Paragraphomitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release34-47986]

 

c)              evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on suchevaluation; and

 

d)             disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s  ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated: August 6, 2004 | /s/ Kari  Stefansson     |   |
|-----------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                  | Kari  Stefansson         |
|                  | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E R R A T U M

January 18, 2006

Appeal No. 05-1215

Koepnick Med. & Educ. Research Found., L.L.C. v. Alcon Labs. Inc.

Non-precedential opinion

Decided: December 28, 2005

Page 9, line 18, “ radial lasers” has been changed to “ excimer lasers ”
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Laurel Road Homeowners :

Association, Inc., :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 960 C.D. 2017

:

William E. Freas and Nancy Freas :

Laurel Road Homeowners :

Association, Inc. :

:

v. : No. 961 C.D. 2017

: 

William E. Freas and Nancy Freas, :

Appellants :

O R D E R

NOW, September 6, 2018, having considered designated appellant’s

application for reargument/reconsideration and appellees’ answer in response 

thereto, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-4 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, (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 ofAugust 22, 2018, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-4 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the“Agreement”) during the period that is 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. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2022By: 
/s/ Erik Laney
Name: Erik LaneyTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2022**