alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Ames True Temper, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endingJune 25, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, RichardDell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

|  |            |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)   | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

/s/ RichardDell                                        Richard DellPresident and Chief Executive Officer (PrincipalExecutive Officer)August 8,2005

----
<Page>

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent
Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information and use of our
report dated February 17, 2000 on the financial statements of First Fortis Life
Insurance Company in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 (Form N-4 No.
333-20343) to the Registration Statement and related Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information of First Fortis Life Insurance Company for the
registration of flexible premium deferred combination variable and fixed annuity
contracts.

Minneapolis, Minnesota                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
April 17, 2002
GREGORY JAMES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2367

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 13, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

John H. Skinner, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

TERMINATION AGREEMENT 

THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of June 22, 2022 by and between Owl Rock Core
Income Corp., a Maryland corporation (the “Borrower”), and Owl Rock Feeder FIC ORCIC Debt LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Lender”). The Borrower and the Lender are sometimes referred to herein as the
“Parties.” 
 WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into an Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, dated May 12, 2021
(as amended from time to time through the date hereof, the “Loan Agreement”) pursuant to which Borrower intended to borrow from Lender and Lender intended to lend to Borrower the principal sum of up to $250 million pursuant to
a revolving promissory note; and 
 WHEREAS, as of the date hereof $0 is outstanding pursuant to the Loan Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the Loan Agreement provides that the unpaid principal balance of any promissory note and accrued interest thereon is payable by the
Borrower from time to time at the discretion of the Borrower but immediately due and payable upon 120 days written notice by the Lender, and in any event due and payable in full no later than February 28, 2023; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to terminate the Loan Agreement effective as of the date hereof. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: 

1. From and after the date hereof, (a) the Loan Agreement shall be terminated in all respects and shall be of no further force or effect;
(b) neither Party shall have any liabilities or obligations, and each Party shall be forever released and discharged in all respects from any and all obligations under or with respect to the Loan Agreement; and (c) neither Party shall have
any rights under the Loan Agreement. 
 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors, legal representatives and assigns of the
Parties. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to any of the conflict of law rules thereof to the extent such rules would require or permit the application of
the laws of another jurisdiction to this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. PDF or other electronic copies of
signatures on this Instrument shall be deemed to be original signatures. 
 [Signature page follows] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the
date above written. 
  

					
	 OWL ROCK CORE INCOME CORP. 


		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jonathan Lamm

		 	 Name:
	 	 Jonathan Lamm

		 	 Title:
	 	 Vice President

	
	 OWL ROCK FEEDER FIC ORCIC DEBT LLC 


		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Alan Kirshenbaum
		 	Name:	 	Alan Kirshenbaum
		 	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer of Owl Rock Feeder FIC LLC, Sole Member
**Exhibit 35.1**

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

​

I, Katrin Watkins, Assistant Secretary of John Deere Capital Corporation, state:

​

A review of John Deere Capital Corporation’s activities for the period from June 28, 2023 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2023-B transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 29, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”) and of John Deere Capital Corporation’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 28, 2023 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables LLC and John Deere Owner Trust 2023-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, John Deere Capital Corporation has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

​

​

| ​               | ​                        | ​              |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------|
| Date: January 9, 2024 | John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​               | ​                        | ​              |
| ​               | By:                            | */s/ Katrin Watkins* |
| ​               | ​                        | Katrin Watkins       |
| ​               | ​                        | Assistant Secretary  |
| ​               | ​                        | ​              |
| ​               | ​                        | ​              |
|                       | ​                        | ​              |

​

----
391 A.2d 680

#### Commonwealth v. Dufur, Appellant.

Argued March 15,1978.

John B. Schaner, Public Defender, for appellant; Richard M. Mohler, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
17

Assocs., Inc. v. Moore McCormack Petroleum, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tex. 

1987) (explaining the canon’s meaning: “the naming of one thing excludes 

another”).

The written agreement addresses expenses by providing for one and only 

one category of expenses to fall purely on Appellant. It provides for “the Fleming 

firm’s payment of the costs of echocardiograms.” But it does not mention any 

litigation expenses other than the echo charges. Nor does any contract language

excuse the Kirklins from paying expenses other than the named echo charges that 

Appellant agreed to pay. The only reasonable conclusion is that the echo costs and 

no others would fall exclusively on Appellant.

The expressio unius rule has been applied to contracts that address expenses. 

In Gunderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 02-09-171-CV, 2010 WL 2636162 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth July 1, 2010, no pet.), the contract allowed for a certain manner 

of collection of attorney’s fees incurred in certain legal actions: “Any fees or 

expenses (including attorney’s fees and expenses) the Bank incurs in responding to 

any such legal process may be charged against any account you maintain with the 

Bank.” Id. at *5. The court of appeals applied the expressio unius rule:

By its terms, the agreement covers only one manner by which Wells 

Fargo is entitled to collect attorney’s fees for responding to the legal 

process it was faced with—the tax levy sent to it by the Board. By 

specifically including this manner only—and purposely excluding all 

other manners of pursuing fees—the parties in this case contracted the 

<T>1,12<END1>1<END2>12<END3>(594,18)<E4>22</E4>0<E5>0<E6>18<E7>11<E8>4/13/2015 12:00:00 AM10:06:13.1887913<E9></T>

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/13/2015 12:16:02 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES

Subsidiaries of the registrant are as follows:



|                                    |  |                                                          
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                                    |  | State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation orOrganization
|Picabo Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware                                                 
|OfficeMax Nevada Company            |  | Nevada                                                   
|Grand & Toy Limited                 |  | Ontario, Canada                                          
|OfficeMax Australia Limited         |  | Australia                                                
|OfficeMax Southern Company          |  | Louisiana                                                
|OfficeMax New Zealand Limited       |  | New Zealand                                              
|OfficeMax North America, Inc.       |  | Ohio                                                     
|OMX Timber Finance Holdings I, LLC  |  | Delaware                                                 
|OMX Timber Finance Holdings II, LLC |  | Delaware                                                 
|Clearfield Insurance Limited        |  | Bermuda                                                  
|Grupo OfficeMax S. de R.L. de C.V.  |  | Mexico                                                   



|Note: | The names of various consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries have been omitted. None of the omitted subsidiaries, considered either alone or together with the other
omitted subsidiaries, constitutes a significant subsidiary.
|----- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deborah Eagan, Appellant.

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Mazzone, J.), rendered August 24, 1989, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

In arguing that the consecutive prison terms she received of 1 *1⁄2*to *41⁄2*years were harsh and excessive, defendant claims that the waiver of her right to appeal was invalid because it was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The record, however, establishes that the waiver was part of a negotiated plea and that defendant fully understood the consequences of the waiver *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1; *People v Brown,*160 AD2d 1039). Even were we to address this issue, it would be rejected. The terms of imprisonment were well within the statutory limits, the sentence was imposed in accordance with the plea-bargain agreement, and the plea was entered in full satisfaction of a 27-count indictment and a three-count indictment. Under the circumstances, County Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant *(see, People v Dean,*155 AD2d 774, *lv denied*75 NY2d 812; *People v McManus,*124 AD2d 305). Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
TOPPED CARROTS 

Well formed – Not lower limit 

U.S. Extra No. 1 

Well formed – Low

U.S. Extra No. 

Fairly well formed – Not lower limit 

U.S. No. 1 

Fairly well formed – L

U.S. No. 1 

August 1990 (Previo
TOPPED CARROTS 

Not fairly well formed 

U.S. No. 2 

Fairly smooth – Not lo

U.S. Extra No. 1 and U

Fairly smooth – Lower limit 

U.S. Extra No. 1 and U.S. No. 1 

Not fairly smoo

U.S. No. 2 

August 1990 (Previo
TOPPED CARROTS 

Maximum allowed U.S. No. 1 – chipped or broken crowns. 

Chipp

(Prev
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CEO**

 

I, William F. Austen, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to report on Form 10-K of Bemis Company, Inc.; and

 

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.

 
| Date   | March 21, 2019 |   | By                                                         | /s/ William F. Austen |
|--------|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|   |                |   | William F. Austen, President and Chief Executive   Officer |

 

----
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Agricultural Marketing Service – Specialty Crops Program – Specialty Crops Inspection Division 1 of 1

Method for Determining Drained Weights of Frozen Sweet Cherries Inspection Aid No. 11

Packed in Large Containers (Over 5 Pounds) July 2016

Equipment

 U. S. Standard No. 8 sieve – 12 inch diameter.

 Large scale of adequate size to perform the analysis.

 Thermometer.

 Rack or other device to hold screen in a horizontal position during draining.

Procedure

A. Thawing

1. Thaw samples in closed containers at room temperature. Leave sufficient 

space around the containers so that air can circulate freely.

2. Open the container periodically and take the temperature at the center of the

mass.

3. Drain the cherries as soon as possible after the center temperature of the 

product has reached 28 ̊ F.

B. Draining

1. Open the container and remove any hard caked sugar from the top. Discard 

the caked sugar after removing any attached cherries. If any loose granulated 

sugar remains on top, gently stir the top of the liquid to dissolve the sugar.

2. Place the tared screen on the scale pan in a horizontal position on the rack, 

tripod ring, or other suitable device. Pour most of the free liquid through the 

screen. This will partially drain the cherries.

3. Pour approximately 7 pounds of the partially drained cherries onto the screen. 

(Remove any lumps of un-dissolved sugar of any appreciable size before 

weighing). Allow to remain 5 minutes, then weigh, record weight, and discard. 

4. Drain approximately 6 to 7 pound portions of the remaining partially drained 

cherries as outlined above until all have been drained and weighed. (This will 

be three draining’s for 30-pound net cans).

5. The sum of the weights obtained is the drained weight of the cherries in the 

container.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 4246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WALTER LEE MATTISON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cr - 00302

- HMH

- 1 )

Submitted : November 7, 2022 Decided: November 16, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, QUATTLEBAUM , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF : Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Winston I. Marosek, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED S TATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4246 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Walter Lee Mattison, Jr., appeals the eight

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. Duri ng the pendency of this appeal, Mattison was released from incarceration. “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither party has raised it.” United States v. Ketter , 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). “A case becomes mo ot

— and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article
III

— when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Mattison ha s already served his term of imprisonment and the district court did not impose any additional term of supervised release, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the revocation sentence. Thus, Mattison’s challenge to the reasonableness of the rev ocation sentence is
moot. See United States v. Hardy , 545 F.3d 280, 283

- 84 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-4246 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries
of the registrant are as follows:

|                                    |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Picabo Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware                                                    
|OfficeMax Nevada Company            |  | Nevada                                                      
|Grand & Toy Limited                 |  | Ontario, Canada                                             
|OfficeMax Australia Limited         |  | Australia                                                   
|OfficeMax Southern Company          |  | Louisiana                                                   
|OfficeMax New Zealand Limited       |  | New Zealand                                                 
|OfficeMax North America, Inc.       |  | Ohio                                                        
|OMX Timber Finance Holdings I, LLC  |  | Delaware                                                    
|OMX Timber Finance Holdings II, LLC |  | Delaware                                                    
|Clearfield Insurance Limited        |  | Bermuda                                                     
|Grupo OfficeMax S. de R.L. de C.V.  |  | Mexico                                                      

---

---



QuickLinks
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,177 

5 JEANNINE LEYBA,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Brett Loveless, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender

14 Albuquerque, NM

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 WECHSLER, Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming her DWI

2 conviction following an on-record appeal from her metropolitan court conviction. [RP

3 59, 69] Our notice proposed to affirm, and Defendant filed a memorandum in

4 opposition (MIO). We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and therefore

5 affirm.

6 {2} Defendant continues to argue that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest her

7 for DWI. [DS 10; MIO 1] See generally State v. Granillo-Macias, 2008-NMCA-021,

8 ¶¶ 7, 9, 143 N.M. 455, 176 P.3d 1187 (setting forth our standard of review and

9 providing that probable cause to arrest exists “when the facts and circumstances

10 within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant the officer to believe that an

11 offense has been or is being committed”). Defendant does not dispute the facts, but

12 urges this Court to re-examine the legal conclusion reached by the metropolitan court.

13 [MIO 1] For the reasons detailed in our notice, however, we agree with the

14 metropolitan court’s ruling, and we therefore affirm.

15 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 ________________________________

17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

18 WE CONCUR:
3

1 ________________________________

2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

3 ________________________________

4 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
WILLIAM J. MCCUTCHEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3016

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gulf County.

John L. Fishel, II, Judge.

William J. McCutchen, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.