alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1)    Theundersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2020 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performancepursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 13, 2019 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2019-A Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2)    To the best ofthe undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2020. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 
**
.

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00035-CR

IN RE LORENZA LEON BLAYLOCK, JR.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lorenza Leon Blaylock, Jr. a Texas inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling

the judge1 of the 87th District Court of Freestone County, to vacate his judgment of 

conviction on grounds that the District Attorney had neither taken nor filed his oaths of 

office; thus, Blaylock maintains that the judgment is void. See TEX. CONST. ART. V, § 21; 

see also TEX. CONST. ART. XVI, § 1. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.2

 

1 Blaylock names the Honorable Horace Dickson Black, Jr. as judge of the 87th Judicial District 

Court of Freestone County. Judge Black presided over Blaylock’s trial, but retired from the 77th Judicial 

District Court of Freestone and Limestone Counties. The Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans is the current 

elected judge of the 87th Judicial District Court.

2 Blaylock’s appendix does not comply with Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. Nevertheless, we will apply Rule of Appellate Procedure 

2 and disregard this deficiency. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.
In re Blaylock Page 2

A writ of habeas corpus is the “exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony 

convictions.” Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Ex parte 

Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, orig. proceeding); TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Appellate courts lack jurisdiction over 

such writs. See Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d at 261; see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

11.07(3)(a), (b); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (Vernon 2005). Although such an 

application must be filed with the trial court, the writ, which issues by operation of law, 

“must be made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals.” Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d at 

261 (quoting TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07(3)).

Blaylock’s petition for writ of mandamus essentially seeks habeas corpus relief. 

See Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d at 261; see also In re Bruno, No. 10-07-00397-CR, 2008 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 506, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 23, 2008, orig. proceeding) (not 

designated for publication). Because we lack jurisdiction to grant such relief, we 

dismiss Blaylock’s petition for writ of mandamus and all pending motions in this 

proceeding for want of jurisdiction. See Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d at 261; see also Bruno, 

2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 506, at *1-2.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis 

Writ dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 3, 2010

[OT06]
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
		  Q1
		  Q2
		  Q3
		  Q4
		  Total1981
          1
          0
          0
          0
          11982
          2
          3
          3
          3
          111983
          1
          1
          2
          3
          71984
          3
          7
          10
          12
          321985
          12
          21
          17
          18
          681986
          14
          14
          21
          16
          651987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 31, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
BALANCE SHEET AT JUN-30-1999 AND STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR YEAR ENDED JUN-30-1999.</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1


<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 1,105
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       1,105
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  6,800
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          (373,318)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,105
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          90
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (90)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-144-01-SM

Jason White

O R D E R

Defendant White’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document17). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2007 trial

period. Defendant White shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

December 27, 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: February 27, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00144-SM Document 18 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 18, 2006

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00144-SM Document 18 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tammy LaFlamme

v.

U.S. Social Security Administration,

Former Commissioner

No. 07-fp-122

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-122-PB.

SO ORDERED.

ames R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 27, 2007

cc: Francis M. Jackson, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00122-PB Document 4 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7038

JOE LEE FULGHAM, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (DOC) MENTAL AND MEDICAL 

DOCTORS; OBIC HOSPITAL SUFFOLK, VA; TIDEWATER MENTAL HEALTH 

SERVICES, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00089-JBF-TEM) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Joe Lee Fulgham appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 (2006) action for failure to 

comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Fulgham v. The Commonwealth of 

Virginia Mental and Med. Doctors, No. 2:09-cv-00089-JBF-TEM 

(E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2009). We deny Fulgham’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 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. 

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

M. Regina Fahy, Haliyamtu Theo Amani,

Sarra Ali, Eva Castillo-Turgeon

and Annagreta Swanson

v. Civil No. 05-cv-097-SM

Commissioner, New Hampshire Department

of Safety

O R D E R

 Despite a clear order to defendant to provide a memorandum

to justify its claim of privilege on the AAMVA documents,

defendant has failed to do so. Defendant has provided no

authority for its claim to a law enforcement privilege claim on

the AAMVA documents. Furthermore, the copyright claim is also

without merit. The subpoena to AAMVA from plaintiff only

partially moots the motion to compel as to the AAMVA documents. 

The motion to compel production of the AAMVA documents is

granted. 

The Appendix R documents are another matter. Those

documents are government documents which both Ms. Beecher and Mr.

Haynes have attested to as confidential and sensitive. They need

not be produced in unredacted form except for those which have

been provided to others under the right to know law. As to the

Case 1:05-cv-00097-SM Document 34 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 2
2

latter documents, the privilege has been waived. 

The motion to compel (document no. 20) is granted in part

and denied in part. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 17, 2005

cc: Stephanie A. Bray, Esq.

 Melanie Marie Chaput, Esq.

 Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

 Christine C. Wellington, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00097-SM Document 34 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55065-55066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1374-001]


ISO Trader, LLC; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 11, 2008, ISO Trader, LLC filed a 
supplement to its August 15, 2008 initial tariff filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail

[[Page 55066]]

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a1c1f081915343633343f092f2a2a35282e1a3c3f2839743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e383b2c3d31101217101b2d0b0e0e110c0a3e181b0c1d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on October 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22272 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JUAN MANUEL JAUREGUI PEREZ, and 

FERNANDA SARAY TOSTADO 

HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

LOREN K. MILLER, Director, Nebraska 

Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, in his official capacity 

as well as his successors and assigns; 

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, in his 

official capacity as well as his successors 

and assigns; UR MENDOZA JADDOU, 

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, in her official capacity as well as 

her successor and assigns; ANTONY J. 

BLINKEN, Secretary of State, U.S. 

Department of State, in his official capacity 

as well as his successors and assigns; 

PHILLIP SLATTERY, Director, National Visa 

Center, U.S. Department of State, in his 

official capacity as well as his successors 

and assigns; and RICHARD C. VISEK, 

Acting Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State, in his official capacity as well as his 

successors and assigns;

Defendants.

4:23CV3085

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of 

Case without Prejudice (Filing No. 41). The Court, being advised in the premises, finds that 

such an Order is proper.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this case be 

dismissed without prejudice.

Dated this 18th day of October, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

4:23-cv-03085-JFB-JMD Doc # 42 Filed: 10/18/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 219
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-24-PB

Corey Gagnon

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 6, 2008 trial in the above case to allow additional time to

complete discovery and prepare a defense. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 6, 2008 to October 7, 2008. 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 reason, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

The April 30, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

September 29, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00024-PB Document 10 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 21, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00024-PB Document 10 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 2
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1982
          2
          3
          3
          3
          111983
          1
          1
          2
          3
          71984
          3
          7
          10
          12
          321985
          12
          21
          17
          18
          681986
          14
          14
          21
          16
          651987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 30, 2003
183 La. 64

#### WILLIAMS v. NATIONAL LIFE *&*ACCIDENT INS. CO., Inc.

No. 33164.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1935.

On Rehearing July 1, 1935.

J. I. McCain, Herman L. Midió, and J. N. Brittingham, Jr., all of New Orleans, for relator.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, for respondent.

ROGERS, Justice.

On December 15, 1924, the defendant company issued an industrial life insurance policy on the life of Walter Williams. The amount of the policy was $105, and the beneficiary named therein was Erline Williams, the insured’s wife. The policy lapsed for the nonpayment of premium on November 2, 1931. The. insured died on December 7, 1932. This suit was filed by the beneficiary in the First city court for the city of New Orleans to recover the full airfount of the policy. The defense of the insurance company was threefold, viz., unconstitutionality and the inapplicability of the statute, and that under the terms of the policy plaintiff was entitled .only to $16.10, its paid-up value, which was tendered.

The court of first instance gave plaintiff a judgment for the full amount of the policy. The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of Act No. 193 of 1906, but amended the judgment by reducing the amount thereof to $16.10. At plaintiff’s instance, we issued a writ of review.

Defendant’s plea that ’Act No. ■ 193 of 1906 is unconstitutional is not properly before us. Foley v. National Life & Accident Insurance Company, Inc. (La. Sup.) 162 So. 798, this day decidéd. .For the rest, the legal questions involved here cannot be differentiated from those which we disposed of in the case of the Succession of Watson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 162 So. 790, this day decided.

■ For the reasons assigned in the Watson Case, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is annulled and the judgment of the First, city court is reinstated and made the final judgment of this court; the defendant insurance company to pay all costs of suit.

On Rehearing.

BRUNOT, Justice.

The status of the plaintiff in this case is the same, and the issues presented are identical with those presented in the case of Charlotte Foley v. National Life & Accident Insurance Company, Inc., 162 So. 798, this day finally decided, and, for the reasons assigned in that case, the original opinion and decree herein are reinstated and made the final judgment of the court.

O’NIELL, C. J.,

dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in 'Succession of Watson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (La. Sup.) 162 So. 790.

FOURNET, J., concurs.

HIGGINS, J., recused.