alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



TWIN RIVER WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the annual report of
Twin River Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, George T. Papanier, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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), 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: | April 1, 2019 | By: | /s/ GEORGE T. PAPANIER               
|----- | ------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|      |               |     | George T. Papanier                   
|      |               |     | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and will not be
deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject
to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATIAS LOPEZ-FERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Jose

Lopez,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10325

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-02035-SMM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 25, 2014

** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Matias Lopez-Fernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for

reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUL 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lopez-Fernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing

and violated his due process rights by relying on an improper factor, namely, the desire

to deter other defendants from exercising their Sixth Amendment right to trial. We

review for plain error, see United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 934-35 (9th

Cir. 2009), and find none. The record belies Lopez-Fernandez’s contention that the

district court sought to deter other defendants from exercising their Sixth Amendment

rights, but rather reflects the court’s concern with deterring false testimony. See

generally United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 96 (1993) (“[A] defendant’s right to

testify does not include a right to commit perjury.”).

Lopez-Fernandez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the

totality of the circumstances, including Lopez-Fernandez’s criminal history and the

need for deterrence and to protect the public. See id.

Finally, we decline to consider Lopez-Fernandez’s argument regarding the

district court’s alleged bias and antagonism toward him. See United States v. Kama,

394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005) (issues not raised in opening brief are generally

waived).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10325
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Consolidated  Financial  Statements  as of  January  31,  1998 and is
qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such   consolidated   financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                 AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                   JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                                             $19,000
<SECURITIES>                                                            $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   $4,557,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      $561,000
<INVENTORY>                                                     $7,418,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               $12,923,000
<PP&E>                                                            $256,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 $20,753,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           $7,202,000
<BONDS>                                                                 $0
<COMMON>                                                       $17,591,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   $0
<PREFERRED>                                                             $0
<OTHER-SE>                                                              $0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   $13,551,000
<SALES>                                                         $7,212,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                $7,212,000
<CGS>                                                           $3,689,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   $3,689,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        $0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 $38,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   $252,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               $252,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         $0
<CHANGES>                                                               $0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      $252,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.07
        

</TABLE>
#### MARTINEZ et al. v. CRUSEL.

No. 14334.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 12, 1933.

P. M. Milner, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Cobb & Jones, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment based upon a verdict of a jury dismissing plaintiffs’ suit for damages for the death of their small daughter, Beverly, which they allege to have been caused by the negligent operation of a Lincoln sedan driven by Cornelius C. Crusel.

• The distressing accident, upon which this suit is based, occurred near Bay St. Louis, Miss., on the 1st day of September, 1930, at about 4 p. m., when plaintiffs’ small daughter was run down by the Lincoln automobile as she attempted to run across the concrete highway which faces the beach. The child suddenly emerged from behind a parked automobile belonging to Mr. Heisler, a relative residing in Bay St. Louis in whose charge she had been left by her parents, Dr. & Mrs. Martinez. The Crusel car approached the scene of the accident from the rear of the parked Heisler car and little Beverly ran into the roadway from' the front of the Heisler car.

It is claimed that Crusel was speeding on the wrong side of the road and that he was further negligent in failing to turn aside or stop, having an opportunity to do both and avoid the accident. However, the evidence satisfies us that Crusel was traveling on the proper side of the road át the modest speed of 25 miles per hour and that, when he first observed the child, there was no opportunity to turn aside or stop. He had just passed a car going in the opposite direction, turning to his right and towards the parked Heisler car for that purpose, when, observing the Heisler car, he turned to the left in order to clear it. The roadway at that point is 24 feet wide and its left extent marked by a sea wall several feet high. When the child ran out from the front of the Heisler car, Crusel had reached its rear, or as one witness puts it, he was about 17 feet away from the child. He did everything possible in an effort to avoid the accident, applied his brakes, and attempted to swerve to the left but he could not stop in time nor could he swerve far enough to avoid striking the little girl. Litolff v. N. O. Railway & Light Co., 124 La. 278, 50 So. 105; Pyaette v. N. O. P. S., 10 La. App. 300, 120 So. 483; Hahn v. P. Graham & Co., 148 La. 55, 86 So. 651; Millanos v. Fatter, 18 La. App. 708, 138 So. 878; Valcour v. Simon Hubig Co., 4 La. App. 521; Powers v. Simmons, 7 La. App. 523; Hanley v. Anthony, 3 La. App. 727; Payne v. Seibert, 4 La. App. 591.

The case from plaintiffs’ standpoint was very ably presented by counsel, who must-feel, as we do, the keenest sympathy for the unfortunate parents, plaintiffs herein, in the loss of their little daughter. But however painful and distressing their loss, we can find no legal responsibility in defendant. It is simply a case of vicarious sacrifice upon the altar of modern progress, as represented by the automobile, the dangerous possibilities of which the infant mind cannot sense.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Northrop Grumman Corporation ) 

) 

Under Contract No. F33657-0l-C-4600 et al. ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59552 

Terry L. Albertson, Esq. 

Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 9 March 2016 

//~~ ~/~ ··-····· -

/ MARK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59552, Appeal of Northrop Grumman Corporation, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-142-01-SM

Donald McMullin

O R D E R

Defendant McMullin’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 18). Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2006

trial period. Defendant McMullin shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than February 16, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: April 21, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: May 2, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 19 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

 __________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 8 , 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 19 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 19

 Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2001

  Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Regula, and Mr. Matsui) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Frank A. Shrontz of Washington 
on May 4, 2000, is filled by the appointment of Walter E. Massey of 
Georgia. The appointment is for a term of 6 years and shall take effect 
on the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53909-53910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21830]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of B.B. Walker Co., Bellatrix International, Inc., 
Belmont Resources, Inc., Beres Industries, Inc., Best Products Co., 
Inc., Bethlehem Corp., and Bogue Electric Manufacturing Co. (n/k/a 
Bogue International, Inc.); Order of Suspension of Trading

September 15, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
B.B. Walker Co. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended August 4, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Bellatrix International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended December 31, 1995.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Belmont Resources, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended January 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Beres Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended December 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Best Products Co., Inc. because it has not

[[Page 53910]]

filed any periodic reports since the period ended November 2, 1996.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Bethlehem Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended February 28, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Bogue Electric Manufacturing Co. (n/k/a Bogue International, Inc.) 
because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended 
September 30, 1998.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on September 15, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 26, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21830 Filed 9-15-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey
Henry, 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 2018-5
(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. Based
on 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 in
all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and
their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Corey HenryName:

Corey HenryTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date:

March 29, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-92-PB

Derrick Jennings, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the March 6, 2007 trial

in the above case, citing the need for additional time to engage

in further plea negotiations. The government and co-defendant

Samuel Ogot, do not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, to allow the parties additional time to

finalize a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from March 6, 2007 to May 1, 2007. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00092-JL Document 28 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on April 17,

2007 at 4:15 p.m.

No further continuances. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 27, 2007

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00092-JL Document 28 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21929]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 97

Amateur Radio Service

CFR Correction

    In title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 80 to end, 
revised as of October 1, 2007, on page 594, in Sec.  97.109, remove 
paragraph (e).
[FR Doc. E8-21929 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 05-cv-427-JM

$16,000.00 U.S. Currency

O R D E R

 Daniel Sodoyer, by letter and by motion, seeks post-judgment

relief to set aside the order of forfeiture and to file a late

claim. Document nos. 14 and 18. Plaintiff objects. 

Background

This is a forfeiture case alleging that $16,602.00 are

subject to forfeit as drug related. There is no doubt that

Sodoyer received actual notice of the forfeiture action on

February 27, 2006, and that he knew that he had thirty (30) days

in which to file his claim and twenty (20) days thereafter in

which to file an answer. There is also no doubt that he failed

to do so. As a consequence judgment was entered. His motion is

treated as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for post-judgment

relief since judgment was entered before the motions were filed. 

Discussion

Claimant Sodoyer does not meet any of the criteria

Case 1:05-cv-00427-JM Document 23 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
2

enumerated under Rule 60(b). He had two and one-half weeks to

make a claim after service and before SHU. Additionally, SHU

inmates can receive legal materials upon request. Finally, as to

Rule 60(b)(1) the notice served on him specified what he had to

do and by when. Rule 60(b)(1)’s excusable neglect permission is

unavailing. 

Rules 60(b)(2) - 60(b)(5) are inapplicable on their face. 

Rule 60(b)(6)’s “exceptional circumstances” also provided no

relief. Sodoyer would be unlikely to prevail, he had two and

one-half to three weeks to file his claim after his certified

notice and before he was lugged to SHU. Many SHU inmates file

here and the court is aware that the Concord, as opposed to the

Berlin, law librarian is very responsive and helpful to all

inmates, including those in SHU. 

The motions (document nos. 14 and 18) are denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 3, 2006

cc: Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.

 Daniel Sodoyer, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00427-JM Document 23 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2