alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, 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 Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2014-B (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.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 

Dated March 23, 2016

 
|   |                                               |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Brian E. Schaaf                                |
|   | Brian E. Schaaf                                    |
|   | Vice President and   Assistant Treasurer           |
|   | Ford Motor Credit   Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|   | (senior officer in   charge of servicing function) |

 

----
868 A.2d 1010

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. FELMEISTER AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 020161978).

March 15, 2005.

ORDER

ROBERT A. FELMEISTER of PRINCETON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1978, having pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to an information charging him with misprision of felony, in violation of § 18 *U.S.C.A.*4, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 13(b)(1), ROBERT A. FELMEISTER is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that ROBERT A. FELMEISTER be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that ROBERT A. FELMEISTER comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF  THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Consolidated Graphics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G. Christopher Colville, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Secretary of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated:
August 14, 2003

| |  | /s/G. CHRISTOPHER COLVILLEG. Christopher Colville
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer and Secretary
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
584 A.2d 223

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL E. JEFFERSON.

May 21, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 99.2 

HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HMN Financial, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy P. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

Date:  11/13/2002                                              /s/ Timothy P. Johnson
Timothy P. Johnson, 

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
** 

M1:901996.01**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,323,151
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  5,428,454
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,396,331
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,381,227
<LOANS>                                     53,644,770
<ALLOWANCE>                                    842,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              87,787,287
<DEPOSITS>                                  79,078,846
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,300,497
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,168,986
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,238,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              87,787,287
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,683,496
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              456,064
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                55,509
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,195,069
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,015,659
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,071,871
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,123,198
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   86,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (8,594)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,898,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                886,206
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     549,893
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   549,893
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     6.0
<LOANS-NON>                                    771,221
<LOANS-PAST>                                   117,406
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               141,715
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 84,446
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               771,925
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   25,619
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,008
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              842,315
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        842,315
        

</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7398 

To prohibit the operation of an exercise facility for Members of the House 

of Representatives or the Members’ Dining Room in the United States 

Capitol during a Government shutdown, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2018 

Mr. FOSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the operation of an exercise facility for Members 

of the House of Representatives or the Members’ Dining 

Room in the United States Capitol during a Government 

shutdown, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Shutdown 

5 Prioritization Act’’ or the ‘‘SPA Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7398 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING OPERATION OF MEMBER EXERCISE 

2 FACILITY OR MEMBERS’ DINING ROOM DUR3 ING SHUTDOWN. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—During a Government shutdown, 

5 the Architect of the Capitol may not operate— 

6 (1) an exercise facility for Members of the 

7 House of Representatives; or 

8 (2) the Members’ Dining Room in the United 

9 States Capitol. 

10 (b) COMPENSATION FOR FURLOUGHED EMPLOY11 EES.—Any employee of the Office of the Architect of the 

12 Capitol who is assigned to the exercise facility or Mem13 bers’ Dining Room described in subsection (a) and who 

14 is furloughed as a result of a Government shutdown shall 

15 be compensated at the employee’s standard rate of com16 pensation, for the period of such Government shutdown, 

17 as soon as practicable after such Government shutdown 

18 ends. 

19 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act— 

20 (1) a ‘‘Government shutdown’’ shall be consid21 ered to be in effect if there is a lapse in appropria22 tions for any Federal agency or department as a re23 sult of a failure to enact a regular appropriations 

24 bill or continuing resolution; and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7398 IH

1 (2) the term ‘‘Members of the House of Rep2 resentatives’’ includes any Delegate or Resident 

3 Commissioner to the Congress. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
CERTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trico Marine Services, Inc.;2.
    
    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;3.
    
    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;4.
    
    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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    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 the equivalent functions):
   Date:  August 8, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Joe CompofeliceJoe CompofeliceChief Executive Officer 57
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 76 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 76

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

Mr. Ratcliffe (for himself, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Collins of 
 Georgia, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. 
Gosar, Mr. Marino, Mr. Culberson, Mrs. Black, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Grothman, 
   Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Labrador, Mr. Issa, Mr. Trott, Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Renacci, 
 Mr. Burgess, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Walker, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Carter of Georgia, 
   Mr. Chabot, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Barr, Mr. Duncan of South 
   Carolina, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Holding, Mr. 
 Olson, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Mullin, Mrs. Love, Mr. 
Bishop of Utah, Mr. Meadows, Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Messer, Mr. Luetkemeyer, 
 Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Woodall, and Mr. Brooks of Alabama) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Separation of Powers Restoration Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS.

    Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``To the extent necessary'' and inserting 
        ``(a) To the extent necessary'';
            (2) by striking ``decide all relevant questions of law, 
        interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and'';
            (3) by inserting after ``of the terms of an agency action'' 
        the following ``and decide de novo all relevant questions of 
        law, including the interpretation of constitutional and 
        statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies. 
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subsection 
        shall apply in any action for judicial review of agency action 
        authorized under any provision of law. No law may exempt any 
        such civil action from the application of this section except 
        by specific reference to this section''; and
            (4) by striking ``The reviewing court shall--'' and 
        inserting the following:
    ``(b) The reviewing court shall--''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 76-5616.

#### Jones et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
585 A.2d 375

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM CUERO.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terri COX.

No. 2010-KK-2072.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

PER CURIAM.*

l,The motion for new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done to the defendant, and, unless such injustice is shown to have been the case the motion shall be denied, no matter upon what allegations it is grounded. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 851. The decision on a motion for a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. *State v. Humphrey,*445 So.2d 1155, 1160 (La.1984).

In this aggravated rape case, the trial judge stated that he granted the motion for new trial because he believed that his decision to allow the five-year-old victim to testify via closed-circuit television under Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:288 violated the defendant’s right to confront the witness. The Confrontation Clause does not guarantee criminal defendants an absolute right to meet their accusers face-to-face, and the state’s interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying in a child abuse case justifies a procedure such as use of closed-circuit television when the state has made an adequate showing of necessity. *See Maryland v. Craig,*497 U.S. 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990).

The trial judge originally found, based upon expert testimony, that the victim would be likely to suffer serious emotional distress if forced to give testimony in open court and that the victim could not reasonably communicate her testimony to the court 12or jury without using closed-circuit television, as required by Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:283. The trial judge granted the motion for new trial on his observation that the child victim testified *outside the courtroom*and away from the presence of her mother, the defendant, without serious emotional distress. The purpose of the law is to allow witnesses to testify without suffering serious emotional distress. The fact that the law worked as intended does not provide a defendant with evidence that “an injustice has been done.” The defendant was able to confront the child victim through cross-examination via closed-circuit television, as allowed by Louisiana law and both the Louisiana and Federal Constitutions. The trial judge abused his discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for new trial.

REVERSED.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.
#### Leroy WHITE, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE and Division of Risk Management, Appellees.

No. 1D09-6408.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 10, 2010.

Leroy White, pro se, Appellant.

*167Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley, Kro-nenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel, Wander, Baña-das, Eskalyo & Dunbrack, P.A., Miami Lakes, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has failed to respond to this court’s order to show cause dated December 29, 2009. This court’s order specifically warned Appellant: “Failure to timely comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal of the appeal, without further opportunity to be heard. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.” By notice of appeal filed December 21, 2009, Appellant seeks review of an order rendered June 19, 2007. Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*§ 440.25(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that orders of judges of compensation claims “shall become final 30 days after mailing of copies of such order to the parties” unless timely appealed); Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(b)(3) (providing this court’s jurisdiction is invoked if notice of appeal is filed within thirty days of rendition of order to be reviewed); *see also, e.g., Metellus v. State,*900 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla.2005) (noting jurisdictional rule cannot be altered by court or by agreement of parties); *Troche v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc.,*954 So.2d 685, 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“It is well settled that to be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed in the appropriate court within the appropriate time period.”); *Metro. Dade County v. Vasquez,*659 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (dismissing untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction). All pending motions are denied as moot.

VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph Edward FARLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 4, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Megan Saillant, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Farley appeals the denial of a dispositive motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm. *See Ortiz v. State,*24 So.3d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); *P.B.P. v. State,*955 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

We treat Farley’s motion to vacate the trial court’s order for restitution as a supplemental brief following the amendment of his notice of appeal. Although the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine *722restitution, because it conducted the hearing and entered the order after a notice of appeal had been filed, that order is without effect. *See Nguyen v. State,*655 So.2d 1249, 1249-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Upon remand, the trial court may conduct a new hearing and again impose restitution.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, TORPY and COHEN, JJ„ concur.
585 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GERALD MOORE.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 392

#### TOWN OF MORRISTOWN v. WOMAN’S CLUB OF MORRISTOWN.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification granted. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*654, 577 A.2d 1309)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25662]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Change to Section IV of the Virginia State 
Technical Guide

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of proposed changes in the Virginia NRCS 
State Technical Guide for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for 
Virginia that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide 
specifically in practice standards: <greek-i>362, Diversion; 
<greek-i>412, Grassed Waterway; <greek-i>430, Irrigation Pipeline; 
<greek-i>436, Irrigation Reservoir; <greek-i>558, Roof Runoff 
Structure; <greek-i>600, Terrace; <greek-i>620, Underground Outlet; 
<greek-i>313, Waste Storage Facility; <greek-i>359, Waste Treatment 
Lagoon; <greek-i>633, Waste Utilization; <greek-i>638, Water and 
Sediment Control Basin. These practices will be used to plan and 
install conservation practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and 
wildlife land.

DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with 
the date of this publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to John A. Bricker, 
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 
1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229-5014; 
Telephone number (804) 287-1691; Fax number (804) 287-1737. Copies of 
the practice standards will be made available upon written request to 
the address shown above or on the Virginia NRCS Web site: http://www.va.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/draftstandards.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS 
in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in 
Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
John A. Bricker,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
Richmond, Virginia.
[FR Doc. 2010-25662 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P