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





AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB



I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby
certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the
"Company"), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the "Servicer" and "Sponsor")
under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of July 24, 2013 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American
Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2013-3 Owner Trust, as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2014, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge and information, based upon such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 23rdday of May, 2014.



| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
EXHIBIT 35.1
  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
  I, Julia A. Sloat, Treasurer of Ohio Power Company (the "Servicer"), certify that:
  (a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 between Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement") has been made under my supervision.
  (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
  Date: March 28, 2014
 
 /s/ Julia A. Sloat
 Name:  Julia A. Sloat
 Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function, Ohio Power Company, as Servicer
Exhibit 31.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, 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(s) 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:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
    /s/ JOHN V. GENOVAJohn V. GenovaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1I, Richard K. Crump, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;    (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and    (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):   (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 8, 2005       /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP         Richard K. Crump    President and Chief Executive Officer
EX-35.5
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.
c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
375 Park Avenue 2nd floor
J0127-023
New York, New York 10152-023

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
    Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-
    C14

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2013 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
    performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's
    supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
    has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
    respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 10, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRUCE EDWARD HENDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00298

- CR

Appeal from

372nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1389911D )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bruce Edward Henderson appeals his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm

.

A ppellant entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense before a jury and the trial court

conducted a unitary proceeding. T EX .C ODE C RIM .P ROC .A NN

. art. 26.14 (West 2009); see Frame

v. State , 615 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1981). Appellant also entered a plea of true to the

enhancement paragraph. The jury found Appellant guilty, found the enhancement paragraph

true, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for a term of ten years. We affirm.

F RIVOLOUS AP PEAL

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be- 2

-

advanced. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Te xas, an

Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it

must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal

authorities.”); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.C rim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the

Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel ’ s brief and the motion to withdraw to

Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief

, and

to seek discretiona ry review

. Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

- 20 (Tex.Crim.App.

2014) (setting forth duties of counsel). Counsel also provided Appellant with a copy of the

appellate record. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief

.

We have carefully reviewed the record a nd counsel’s brief . We agree that the appeal is

wholly frivolous and without merit

, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

December 21, 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
#### FARMERS PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION OF MOORESTOWN, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BENJAMIN ZUCK, S. & R. FARMS INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Submitted December 21, 1953

Decided December 23, 1953.

*40Before Judges Clapp, Goldmann and Ewart.

*Mr. Edward*W. *Haines*for plaintiff-respondent.

*Mr. Albert Kushinslcy*for defendants-appellants.

Per Curiam.

Motion is made by defendants-appellants to enlarge the time for presentation of an agreed statement in lieu of record under *R. R.*1:6-2. The rule authorizes such a statement provided counsel present it to the court below for approval within 20 days after the filing of the notice of appeal. Here the notice of appeal was filed September 4, 1953. The application for an extension, though verified December 8, 1953, did not come before the three members of this part until December 21, 1953, not only after the expiration of the 20-day period, but about three months thereafter. It might be noticed, in passing, that all applications for extensions of time come before the part sitting together.

Counsel for defendants-appellants seeks to excuse this delay, saying that 'as assistant prosecutor he had to spend a substantial portion of one month in the preparation of a murder trial and that, in addition to six pre-trial conferences, he appeared in court on 18 days for all or a portion *41of the day. Very plainly that does not account for or excuse this delay of *2y2*to 3 months. Under *'ll. Li.*1 U — 13 we are authorized to extend the times fixed by the rules for the perfecting of appeals, provided good cause is shown. Good cause is not shown here. It makes no difference that the respondent’s attorney consents to the extension.

Motion denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-566

In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-83-1-MU)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking

to have this court direct the district court to act on his complaint. We find no unreasonable delay. Therefore, while we grant

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition without

prejudice to Petitioner’s right to refile the petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
O rder filed March 19 , 20 20



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 20

- 00 0 54

- C V

__________
RYAN BROUSSARD , Appellant

V. IPSCO TUBULARS, INC. D/B/A TMK IPSCO , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70 th D istrict Court E ctor County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. A

- 19

- 08

- 1063

- CV

O R D E R In this accelerated appeal from an order in which the trial court deni ed a special appearance

, Appella nt , Ryan Broussard, ha s filed in this court a motion to
stay all proceedings , including discovery , in the underlying suit

. At the time that Appellant conferred with Appe l l ee, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc. d/b/a TMK IPSCO, Appellee opposed the motion to stay. Appellee has since filed a response in this court in which Appellee indicates that it “has withdrawn its opposition to Appellant’s Motion to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeal.”2 Appellants’ motion to stay is granted. Accordingly, all proceedings below are stayed pending further order of this court or final disposition of the interlocutory appeal in this cause. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 29.3.

PER CURIAM

March 19, 2020

Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Christopher Michael Nelson v. Commonwealth of Virginia

September 24, 2003

Case No. (Chancery) 177924

By Judge Michael P. McWeeny

This case was referred to me for entry of a Consent Order of Expungement. Although the Commonwealth’s Attorney does not object, I decline to enter the Order at this time.

First, the Petition must be filed “with a copy of the warrant or indictment if reasonably available.” Va. Code § 19.2-392.2(C). This is a2000-2001 case, and the warrant (or summons) is on file and available. In addition, the charge is one subject to entry of a guilty plea followed by a “diversion” with ultimate dismissal. The warrant, with the Court’s disposition on its face, must be presented.

Second, the record check does not comply with the Code. “The law enforcement agency shall submit the set of fingerprints to the Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) with a copy of the petition for expungement attached. The CCRE shall forward under seal to the court a copy of the petitioner’s criminal history, a copy of the source documents that resulted in the CCRE entry that the petitioner wishes to expunge, and the set of fingerprints.” Va. Code § 19.2-392.2(E).

It is insufficient to provide an “Individual Review” by the Maryland Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS), however complete or correct it may be. Expungement is a statutory process and strict compliance is required.

While the Order is rejected at this time, the Petition has not been denied. Once the Petition is amended to include a copy of the warrant and it has been processed in accordance with the Code, the case may be resubmitted to me for review.

*149
      *Order*

This cause came before the Court upon Petitioner for Expungement for entry of a consent Order of Expungement date-stamped September 17,2003, and, it appearing to the Court that the statutory requirements have not been met, now, therefore, it is ordered that the consent Order of Expungement as aforesaid be, and hereby is, rejected, and it is further ordered that the Petition for Expungement be amended to attach the warrant and that this case remain open for statutory compliance and court review.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,381,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,393,666
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,393,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          488,574
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,905,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,393,666
<SALES>                                            111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   111
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    111
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       111
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2412 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2412

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
            provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 6, 2011

Mr. McGovern (for himself, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Connolly 
of Virginia, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Moran, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Capuano, Mr. 
Farr, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Schwartz, 
  Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Sires, Mr. 
   Kucinich, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Olver, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Tsongas, Ms. 
   Hirono, and Mr. Quigley) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
            provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment.

    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 ``Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. UNIFORM DOLLAR LIMITATION FOR ALL TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION 
              FRINGE BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 132(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to limitation on exclusion) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$100'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``$230'', and
            (2) by striking ``$175'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``$230''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) 
of section 132(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
inflation adjustment) is amended--
            (1) by striking the last sentence,
            (2) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2012'', and
            (3) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2011''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```