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








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2021 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-3, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





1. CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.





3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2022 and ending on February 28, 2023 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.








Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 26th day of May, 2023.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 82

Expressing the gratitude of the United States Senate for the service of

Thomas B. Griffith, Legal Counsel for the United States Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 22, 1999

Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. LOTT, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. MCCONNELL, and

Mr. DODD) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the gratitude of the United States Senate for

the service of Thomas B. Griffith, Legal Counsel for

the United States Senate.

Whereas Thomas B. Griffith, the Legal Counsel of the

United States Senate, became an employee of the Senate

on March 13, 1995, and since that date has ably and

faithfully upheld the high standards and traditions of the

Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Senate;

Whereas Thomas B. Griffith, from October 24, 1995, to

April 18, 1999, served as the Legal Counsel of the

United States Senate and demonstrated great dedication,

professionalism, and integrity in faithfully discharging

the duties and responsibilities of his position, including

providing legal defense of the Senate, its committees,
2

•SRES 82 ATS

Members, officers, and employees; representing committees in proceedings to obtain evidence for Senate investigations; representing the interests of the Senate as intervenor or amicus curiae in various court cases; and otherwise providing legal advice to Members, committees,

and officers of the Senate;

Whereas Thomas B. Griffith, only the second person to hold

the position of Senate Legal Counsel since it was created

in 1979, has met the needs of the United States Senate

for legal counsel with unfailing professionalism, skill,

dedication, and good humor during his entire tenure; and

Whereas Thomas B. Griffith has tendered his resignation as

Senate Legal Counsel, effective as of April 18, 1999, to

return to the private practice of law: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That the United States Senate commends

2 Thomas B. Griffith for his more than 4 years of faithful

3 and exemplary service to the United States Senate and

the Nation, including 31 4 ⁄2 years as Senate Legal Counsel,

5 and expresses its deep appreciation and gratitude for his

6 faithful and outstanding service.

7 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit

8 a copy of this resolution to Thomas B. Griffith.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 181 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 181

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need to protect post 
                                offices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2001

  Mrs. Emerson (for herself, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Shows, Mr. Murtha, Mr. 
  Faleomavaega, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Green of 
Wisconsin, Mr. Graves, Mr. Holden, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Towns, Mr. Pomeroy, 
 Mr. Pastor, Mr. English, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mrs. Christensen, 
 Mr. McGovern, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Gibbons, 
   Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. 
 Evans, and Mr. Blunt) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need to protect post 
                                offices.

Whereas the United States Postal Service has announced that it may consider 
        closing post offices that do not cover their costs;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to 
        ``establish Post Offices'', recognizing that mail services are essential 
        to binding the citizenry of this Nation together;
Whereas Congress has stated, time and time again, that post offices should not 
        be closed or consolidated solely for operating at a deficit, it being 
        the intent of Congress that effective postal services be ensured for all 
        Americans, whether residing in urban, suburban, or rural communities;
Whereas many communities have only limited methods of communication, and rely on 
        the post office to allow them to correspond with persons elsewhere in 
        the Nation or around the world; and
Whereas the post office is an essential institution within every community: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States Postal 
Service--
            (1) should provide a maximum degree of effective and 
        regular postal services to all communities, including rural 
        areas and small towns where post offices may not be self-
        sustaining; and
            (2) should take all necessary steps to ensure that post 
        offices are not closed or consolidated.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50004

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCIAL CRUZ-QUEVADO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:05-CR-597

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marcial CruzQuevado raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997), which held

that a Texas felony conviction for possession of marijuana was an

“aggravated felony” under § 2L1.2(b) of the Sentencing

Guidelines. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[No. 12950-1-III.

Division Three.

August 8, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Deanna L. Hammons, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 91-1-00200-3, Evan Sperline, J., entered December 7, 1992. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Munson, J.
AWS-~IN. TEXAS 78711 

September 5, 1973 

Honorable Ken Andrew8 

County Attorney 

Young County 

Graham, Texas 

Dear Mr. Andrews: 

Opinion No. H- 95 

Re: Whether probation fee 

may be collected from 

persons placed on probation after conviction 

fdi misdemeanor 

You have requested the opinion of this office on two questions: 

“1. Whether the person placed on probation 

under a misdemeanor can be made to pay a probation fee of not more than $10.00 per month? 

"2. Who collects the probation fee? ” 

You comment that: 

“Under Article 42.12 the felony probation 

.law, the District Judge may assess a probation 

fee not to exceed $10.00 per month as a term of 

the probation. 

“We are unable. to find any authority under 

which a misdemeanor defendant who has been placed 

on probation can be made to pay a probation fee. I’ 

Article 42.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the Misdemeanor 

Probation Law, does not contain any provision for charging a misdemeanor 

defendant a supervisory or probation fee. 

However, $ 5 6(a) and ,l2, respectively, of Article 42.12 of the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure, the Adult Probation and Parole Law, provide: 

p. 439 
The Honorable Ken Andrews, page 2 (H-95) 

“Sec. 6a. (a) A court granting probation may 

fix a fee not exceeding $10 per month to be paid to 

the court by the probationer during the probationary 

period. The court may make payment of the fee a 

condition of granting or continuing the orobation. 

‘I. . . 

“Sec. 12. The provisions of Sections 6a. 10, 

and 11 of this Article also apply to Article 42.13. ” 

The above provision of 0 12 of Article 42.12 authorizes charging a 

probation or supervisory fee to a misdemeanor defendant who has been 

placed on probation, if the court so directs. 

Attorney General’s Opinion C:64g holds to the contrary; however 

this opinion was written befo.re the enactment of the above sections 6a(a) 

and 12 of Article 42.12. 

In answer to your second question, $ 6a(a) provides that the fee is 

“to be paid to the court by the probationer” and $ 6a(b) provides that “the 

court shall distribute the fees [in the matter provided]“. It is our opinion, 

therefore, that the fee is to be collected by the court or at least under the 

court’s direction. 

SUMMARY 

The court may direct the payment of a probation 

fee of a misdemeanor defendant who has been placed 

on probation, such fee to be collected by or under the 

direction of the court. 

Very truly yours, 

A 

L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 440 
The Honorab,le Ken Andrews. page 3 (H-95) 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairdan 

Opinion Committee 

p. ,441
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

p0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146323

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146323

COA: 312012

Ionia CC: 2011

- 015058

- FH

DASHI HURSEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20672 Summary Calendar

WAYNE E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., also known as Countrywide Funding Corporation, Inc.; BANKER’S TRUST CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA; and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., also known as Deutsche Asset Management, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:06-cv-2874
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * After Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (“Deutsche Bank”) foreclosed on Appellant Wayne E. Williams’ property, Williams filed a pro se lawsuit alleging violation ofnumerous consumer protection statutes. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20672

2 Williams argues on appeal that the party that authorized the foreclosure sale lacked authority to do so. As the sole basis for this argument, Williams contends that there are contradictions in Defendants’ summary judgment evidence, namely one document that correctly shows that the loan wasowned by Vendee Mortgage Trust 1995-3 and other documents that reference Deutsche Bank as trustee for Vendee Mortgage Trust 1994-2 (rather than 1995-3). Williams contends that the district court erred in finding that the incorrect numbers in Defendants’ documents were mere clerical or typographical errors that did not prevent Deutsche Bank from lawfully foreclosing. We reviewthedistrict court’sgrant ofsummaryjudgment denovo
. U nited States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court noted uncontradicted evidence that Deutsche Bank was the trustee for both Vendee Mortgage Trust 1995-3 and Vendee Mortgage Trust 1994-2. The typographical errors did not change the fact that Deutsche Bank was the trustee with power toforeclose on Williams’ property, and itwas Deutsche Bank that authorized the foreclosure sale. The district court found that the foreclosure notice and sale
were not defective and held that the apparent clerical or typographical errors in the foreclosure documents did not deprive Williams ofthe due process afforded to debtors under the Texas Property Code. Williams has cited to no evidence or authority that the incorrect numbers were anything other than typographical errors, that the errors harmed him, or made any difference whatsoever in the foreclosure process, or that this type of error entitles him to any legal relief. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATE
        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 Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Robert M. Blodgett, Chief Financial Officer 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:
 
 (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
                respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company. 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/
        Robert M. Blodgett
 Name:
        Robert M. Blodgett
 Title:
        Chief Financial Officer
 Date:
        February 14, 2006
EXHIBIT 10.20



CONSULTING CONTRACT



|         |  |         
|-------- |  | --------
|Chisinau |  | May 2003



Asconi Corporation, a Nevada
corporation, located at: 160 International Parkway, Suite 280, Heathrow, FL 32746, U.S.A., represented by its President and CEO Constantin JITARU (the Firm), and MELNIC Vasile, domiciled at: str. Basarabiei nr. 21, Edinet, Republic of
Moldova (Consultant), have agreed as follows:



1. Consultant
agrees to provide Firm with construction and design related consulting services including the following:



a. advice on construction and design solutions for the Firms projects in the territory of the Republic of Moldova.



b. projection and development works for the winery renovation projects
undertaken by the Firm.



c. elaboration of cost estimates and
feasibility studies for the aforementioned projects.



d. search
for contractors and subcontractors, study of financial and technical proposals, development of recommendations for the selection of contractors and subcontractors.



2. This contract shall enter into effect on the date of its signing and shall remain in effect for five years.



3. Consultant shall supply the Firm, at any time when necessary, with written reports
concerning the analyses and solutions provided hereunder.



4. The Firm shall
bear all expenses related to the performance of this assignment within the validity of this contract.



5. The Firm shall pay the Consultant a fee equal to 100,000 shares of common stock in Asconi Corporation, a Nevada corporation.



6. The Firm represents and warrants to Consultant that the Firm is, and will be at the time of the transfer of the above stock to Consultant, the sole legal and
beneficial owner of this stock and that this stock is fully paid up and is free of any pledge, lien or other encumbrance.



7. The fee is payable in advance, within six months from the date of signing of this contract.



8. Force Majeure. Either party shall not be held responsible for failure or delay to perform all or any part of this contract due to flood,
fire, earthquake, draught, war or any other events, which could not be predicted, controlled, avoided or overcome by the relative party. However, the party affected by the event of Force Majeure shall inform the other party of its occurrence in
writing as soon as possible and thereafter send a certificate of the event issued by the relevant authorities to the other party within 15 days after its occurrence.



9. The parties acknowledge that Consultants relationship with the Firm hereunder is one of an independent contractor and that in no
case shall Consultant be deemed an employee of the Firm and be entitled to the benefits and protection provided by labor law.



|    |  |                       |  |     |  |                  
|--- |  | --------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------
|    |  | FIRM:                 |  |     |  | CONSULTANT:      
|    |  |                       | 
|By: |  | /s/ Constantin Jitaru |  | By: |  | /s/ Vasile Melnik
|    |  | Constantin Jitaru     |  |     |  | Vasile Melnik
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph FRANK v. Jack F. DONNELLY, Warden, Washington Correctional Institute.

No. 87-KH-1996.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 7, 1987.

In re Frank, Joseph; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 268-247.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on an application he has filed for post-conviction relief. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the application.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. George SILBY, Sr.

No. 85-KH-1964.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Silby, George H. Sr.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 290-909.

Denied.
[No. 34254-1-I.

Division One.

June 17, 1996.]

#### Dennis Martin, et al., *Respondents,*v. John McEvoy, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 91-2-17082-7, Michael Spearman, J., entered February 7, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Webster, J.
#### Arnett LOFTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1620.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Nov. 25, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1988.

Arnett Lofton, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and W. Brian Bayly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

Appellant’s departure sentence based on the habitual offender statute is vacated and this cause remanded for resentencing under the sentencing guidelines. *See Frierson v. State,*511 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) and *Kersey v. State,*515 So.2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*RALSTON SALMON

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15930.

*Matthew P. Tuller,*in support of petition.

The petition by the surety B & B Bail Bonds Agency, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17752) is granted, limited to the following issue:

> “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the appellant bail bond company, as a nonparty to this criminal action, had no right to appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying its motions for release of bond and for rebate on its bond?”

*937
      *Carolyn K. Longstreth,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided May 7, 1998
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 74

Expressing the support of the Senate for the members of the United States

Armed Forces who are engaged in military operations against the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BENNETT, Mr.

BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BOND, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BREAUX, Mr.

BROWNBACK, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BYRD, Mr.

CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. COLLINS,

Mr. CONRAD, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEWINE,

Mr. DODD, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. EDWARDS,

Mr. ENZI, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr.

FRIST, Mr. GORTON, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELMS,

Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr.

INOUYE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERREY,

Mr. KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. KYL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr.

LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr.

MACK, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MOYNIHAN,

Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REED, Mr. REID,

Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. ROTH, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY,

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Ms. SNOWE, Mr.

SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. THURMOND,

Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WELLSTONE, and

Mr. WYDEN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the support of the Senate for the members of
2

SRES 74 ATS

the United States Armed Forces who are engaged in

military operations against the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia.

Whereas the President has authorized United States participation in NATO military operations against the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia;

Whereas up to 22,000 members of the Armed Forces are

presently involved in operations in and around the

Balkans region with the active participation of NATO

and other coalition forces; and

Whereas the Senate and the American people have the greatest pride in the members of the Armed Forces and

strongly support them: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the members of

2 the United States Armed Forces who are engaged in mili3 tary operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

4 and recognizes their professionalism, dedication, patriot5 ism, and courage.

Æ