alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cv-401-PB 

Opinion No. 2011 DNH 144

William E. Boutwell

O R D E R

The United States filed this action against William 

Boutwell to recover taxes, interest, and penalties he owed 

pursuant to Section 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code. The case 

was stayed after Boutwell sought Chapter 13 bankruptcy 

protection and the United States responded in bankruptcy court 

with a proof of claim seeking to recover the taxes, interest, 

and penalties that it was owed as of the date that Boutwell 

filed his bankruptcy petition. After negotiations between the 

parties, the United States filed an amended proof of claim 

seeking $57,996.82. Boutwell withdrew his objection to the 

claim as amended, a plan of confirmation was approved stating 

that the United States would receive $57,997 “payable at 0% 

interest per plan,” and the court approved the amended proof of 

claim in the same amount. The United States then obtained

Case 1:07-cv-00401-PB Document 30 Filed 09/22/11 Page 1 of 3
2

relief from the stay in bankruptcy court and resumed its 

litigation in this court. The parties filed cross motions for 

summary judgment and the only issue that remains in dispute is 

whether the United States is entitled to recover post-petition 

interest.

Boutwell contends that he cannot be held liable for postpetition interest because the bankruptcy court specified in 

approving the plan of confirmation that interest would not be 

assessed on the amount he owed the government under the plan. 

I reject this argument because it is inconsistent with First 

Circuit precedent. In In re Cousins, the First Circuit held 

that post-petition interest on a non-dischargeable tax 

obligation could be recovered from a taxpayer who had completed 

all payments owed under a confirmed plan and received a 

discharge in a Chapter 12 proceeding. 209 F.3d 38, 41-42 (1st 

Cir. 2000). In reaching this conclusion, the court held that 

post-petition interest owed on a non-dischargeable debt is not 

dischargeable in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding. Id. Thus, 

the court reasoned, it may be recovered in a subsequent action 

against the debtor even though the debtor has received a 

discharge in bankruptcy. Id. Boutwell presents no persuasive 

Case 1:07-cv-00401-PB Document 30 Filed 09/22/11 Page 2 of 3
3

argument to distinguish In re Cousins. Accordingly, I grant the 

government’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 27) and deny 

Boutwell’s corresponding motion (Doc. No. 23). 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 22, 2011

cc: James E. Brown, Esq.

Barry C. Richmond, Esq.

Victor W. Dahar, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00401-PB Document 30 Filed 09/22/11 Page 3 of 3
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 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: Wilmington Trust, 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
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1242

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of status

under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending

the deadline for classification petition and labor certification filings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. KING (for himself, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr.

CROWLEY, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin,

Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. WYNN, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. QUINN, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms.

SLAUGHTER, Mr. WALSH, Mr. WEINER, Mr. GRUCCI, Mr. ENGEL, and

Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for

adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline

for classification petition and labor certification filings.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 245(i)(1)(B)(i) of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)(i))
2

•HR 1242 IH

1 is amended by striking ‘‘April 30, 2001;’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘October 31, 2001;’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact5 ment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (as en6 acted into law by Public Law 106–553).

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Philippe R. Rollier, certify that: I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Lafarge North America
Inc.; Based on my knowledge, this report does 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; Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure 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 our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. March 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Philippe R. Rollier
Philippe R. Rollier
President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22546]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [73 FR 54644, 
September 22, 2008]

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Tuesday, September 23, 
2008 at 10 a.m.

Change in the Meeting: Date Change.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 10 
a.m., has been changed to Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 10 a.m.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22546 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Gary F. Kimmons, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GK Intelligent
Systems, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure 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 our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instruction contained
in SEC release 34-47986];

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.




Date:  November 22,  2004



/s/  Gary F. Kimmons
-----------------------------------------
Gary F. Kimmons, Chief  Financial  Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1906 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1906

  To amend the Act that established the Pu'uhonua O Honaunau National 
         Historical Park to expand the boundaries of that park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2001

 Mrs. Mink (for herself and Mr. Abercrombie) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Act that established the Pu'uhonua O Honaunau National 
         Historical Park to expand the boundaries of that park.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES OF PU'UHONUA O HONAUNAU NATIONAL 
              HISTORICAL PARK.

    (a) Expansion.--The first section of the Act of July 26, 1955 
(chapter 385; 16 U.S.C. 397), is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

                               ``parcel 4

    ``The lands within the boundaries depicted on the map entitled ____ 
and dated ____, consisting of approximately 805 acres, subject to such 
minor adjustment of such boundaries as may be considered by the 
Secretary of the Interior to be necessary.''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--To acquire lands and 
interests in lands within the boundaries of the area added to Pu'uhonua 
O Honaunau National Historical Park by subsection (a), there are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior 
$20,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, August 4-8, 20Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated 

Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 667,450 18,545 72,863 218,315 253,322 67,046 16,524 

Number of loans 15,962 373 1,481 6,403 5,839 1,104 427 

Weighted average maturity (months)1 16.31 9.37 14.74 19.72 16.37 4.47 27.08 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 2.46 1.25 3.50 3.00 2.32 .46 2.82 

Weighted average risk rating3 3.44 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate 4 4.73 4.34 4.96 4.77 4.34 5.88 4.09 

 Standard error5 .14 .31 .35 .17 .22 .30 .42 

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 5.62 5.39 6.30 6.12 5.06 7.77 5.08 

 25th percentile 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 4.59 3.15 

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.36 3.93 3.96 6.30 3.63 4.63 4.65 

 Other livestock 4.85 3.81 5.21 5.08 4.22 4.11 n.a

 Other current operating expenses7 4.85 4.26 5.65 4.91 4.48 5.36 4.43 

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.58 4.99 6.21 5.45 4.57 7.69 5.26 

 Farm real estate 5.63 n.a. 6.07 5.91 5.21 n.a. 6.31 

 Other8 4.19 6.50 4.55 3.78 4.18 6.25 3.77 

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 87.71 84.58 57.45 83.07 97.73 98.38 82.13 

 Under commitment 86.15 89.58 89.14 83.38 88.24 96.04 93.80 

 Callable 14.99 16.53 48.16 17.99 5.52 10.16 .63 

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 13.84 42.82 29.76 9.15 14.95 6.40 3.30 

 Other livestock 6.90 8.01 31.76 3.81 4.38 3.03 n.a

 Other current operating expenses7 42.15 34.32 27.39 39.78 45.44 52.49 30.91 

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.58 4.99 .75 5.64 9.56 18.43 .53 

 Farm real estate 5.90 n.a. 4.39 7.99 6.53 n.a. 3.28 

 Other8 23.62 9.85 5.95 33.63 19.13 19.65 61.98 

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 9.10 .09 7.25 10.26 9.35 8.48 12.12 

 Other 83.71 98.94 89.53 76.79 89.16 91.52 75.87 

 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-40-01-SM

Paul Dimick

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 14) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than October 28, 2005. 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 the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00040-SM Document 15 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: December 16, 2005 at 3:00 PM

Jury Selection: January 4, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

October 18, 2005 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Mark Irish, Esq.

 Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00040-SM Document 15 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
### NO. SCWC-28857
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

DAVID GARNER, ALLAN KLITERNICK, JO JENNIFER GOLDSMITH and DAVID HUDSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 28857; CIV. NO. 07-1-1480)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Duffy, J., for the court ) 1 

### Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants’ application for writ of certiorari, filed on June 28, 2011, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 3, 2011. Paul Alston, FOR THE COURT: Peter S. Knapman, Mei-Fei Kuo, and /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. Bruce H. Wakuzawa for petitioners/ Associate Justice plaintiffs-appellants on the application and reply Deirdre Marie-Iha, Deputy Solicitor General,for respondent/defendantappellee on the response

C o n s i d e r e d b y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , D u f f y , and M cKenn a, JJ . 1 and C ircui t Jud ge Ga ribal di, i n pla ce of Acob a, J. , rec used. 

### Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-28857 03-AUG-2011 12:35 PM
#### KIHNEMAN et al. v. NEJIM.

No. 7022.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 27, 1947.

Love & Bailey, of Shreveport, for appellants.

Mabry & Carstarphen, of Shreveport, for appellee.

KENNON, Judge.

Alleging that an automobile collision at the intersection of Murphy and Texas Streets in Shreveport, Louisiana, resulted from defendant’s poor vision, his negligence in speeding and in failing to keep a proper look-out, and from his disregarding a red traffic light, plaintiffs sued for $482 damages, consisting of several elements.

Defendant’s answer was that he was proceeding northerly on Texas Street at 15 miles an hour, with a green light, when plaintiffs’ car made a sudden left turn directly into his path and in disregard of the right of way in his favor by virtue of the Texas Street green light.

The trial judge gave judgment for defendant and plaintiffs appealed.

The color of the traffic signal facing Texas Street at the time of the collision is the decisive factor in the case. City traffic rules permit a left turn at this intersection on red light — a lighted blue arrow pointing left is visible over the red signals on Texas Street from either direction. At the time of the collision plaintiffs were making a left turn off Texas Street and defendant was proceeding along Texas Street directly through the Murphy Street intersection. Therefore, if the Texas Street signal was green, he had right of way over plaintiffs’ left turn move.

The plaintiff’s (Philip M. Kihneman) testimony that they entered the turn on red light (with left pointing blue arrow) is supported by his wife, who was in the car with him; by the testimony of a co-worker of hers, who was awaiting a trolley, and by the testimony of a police officer and another witness that defendant — after the accident —said he had a blue light (plaintiff at the same time was asserting that he had a blue arrow in his favor).

*619Defendant did not deny that in the excitement following the accident he may have said a blue light was in his favor, but maintained that he entered the intersection on the green light. Defendant’s wife, who was with him at the time, likewise testified that the light was green. Three witnesses testified that they were in a car proceeding some two car lengths behind defendant and that he entered the intersection on a green light. A doubt is raised as to their having been there by the fact that they did not stop at the time and first disclosed themselves as having knowledge of the accident some days later.

From our close study of the record we cannot reach a firm conclusion as to the color of the Texas Street signal at the time of the accident.

The plaintiff must make out his case by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, found for the defendant. Our careful examination of the record does not lead us to a different conclusion.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.