alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Daniel H. Schulman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. (the Company), certify that:



|(1) | the report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act); and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods referred to in the Report.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 12, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/  Daniel H. Schulman
|                        |  |  |  | Daniel H. Schulman     
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. and will be retained by Virgin Mobile
USA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**usbank********Annual Statement of Compliance****Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2012-C5***VIA: EMAIL*Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 1585 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Attention: Stephen Holmes stephen.holmes@morganstanley.com Re: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of July 1, 2012 among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., as depositor, Bank of America, National Association, as master servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as special servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as trust advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as custodian, and U.S. Bank  National  Association,  as  trustee,  certificate  administrator,  certificate  registrar  and authenticating agent I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:           (1) A review of the activities of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the  "Reporting  Period") and  of the  performance  of  the  Certificate  Administrator  under the  Agreement has been made under my supervision; and           (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such Reporting Period  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. Date: March 24, 2015 U.S. Bank National Association as Certificate Administrator  By:  /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs Kimberly O. Jacobs           Senior Vice President
#### BRAMMER v. STATE.

No. 19016.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 19, 1937.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1937.

Howth, Adams & Hart and Mike Daugh-try, all of Beaumont, for appellant.

Lloyd'W. Davidson, State’s Atty.'j of Austin, ior the State.

...CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Theoffense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two'-years..

-'■’-The state’s proof 'showed that appellant burglarized the' place • of business-of the Railway - Ex-press’'Agency in Port Arthur. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant admitted -his* guilt, but. dcclared-.;.th’at R. . L. Spurill, who was employed by the sheriff, induced him to commit the offense.

Appellant contends that the conviction should not stand because of the fact that he was entrapped. There is no testimony that the owner of the burglarized premises had anything to do with originating the offense. In short, neither the owner nor any person in charge of the premises was shown .to have been connected in any manner with the alleged entrapment of appellant. It follows that we are of opinion that the evidence is sufficient.

It was elicited from appellant that he had theretofore been convicted of other felonies. Appellant excepted to the charge of the court for its failure to limit such testimony to the purpose of impeachment. Such a charge would have been proper. However, in the state of the record, the failure of the court to respond to the exception cannot be _ held to constitute reversible error. Appellant was. in no position to ask for a suspended sentence, having thereto'fore been convicted of a felony; and no application was’ before the jury requesting the suspension of the sentence. The jury assessed the minimum penalty. In his .testimony appellant admitted his guilt. .

In his motion for a new trial appellant alleged that-a prejudiced juror had served. It appears that said juror had on an occasion with many others been appointed a deputy sheriff during a strike. The sheriff who appointed said juror was a witness in the present case. There is nothing in the’ record to show that the juror was prejudiced. '

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court' of Criminal Appeals and approved by the 'court.

On Motion for Reheárihg.

.'MORROW,.Presiding Judge:..

We have carefully reviewed the record in:'the -light "of -the -appellant’s motion for rehearingand ‘ha<v.e :reached:-the conclu-r sion that the proper disposition .of the appeal -was' njade upon-. thes original .hearing.

The ¡.motion: for rehearing sis therefore overruled.'-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000079326
<NAME>                        POLAROID CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             105,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      501,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (42,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        533,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,293,400
<PP&E>                                           1,975,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,409,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,197,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              933,000
<BONDS>                                            497,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                         314,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,197,700
<SALES>                                          1,845,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,845,900
<CGS>                                            1,108,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,894,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (38,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (51,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (51,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.15)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, John D. Feehan, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. (the Company), certify that:



|(1) | the report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods referred to in the Report.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ John D. Feehan, Jr.
|                      |  |  |  | John D. Feehan, Jr.    
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. and will be retained by Virgin Mobile
USA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### FREEMAN et al. v. PARKS.

No. 3500.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Feb. 11, 1937.

T. W. Grobe, of Houston and J. E. Weis-ler, of Brenham, for appellants.

Albert Stone and John M. Mathis, both of Brenham, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

Ann Freeman, and others not necessary to 'mention, brought this suit against Mrs. Hattie Parks to cancel and set aside a conveyance by Ann Freeman to Mrs. Parks of a one-fourth interest in a mineral royalty interest in land owned by said Ann Freeman. Upon an instructed verdict, judgment was rendered for the defendant.

The petition seems to base the suit upon want of consideration, or at least grossly inadequate consideration, and fraud.

There is no evidence of an entire want of consideration. The undisputed evidence shows a consideration paid of at least $100. The evidence would have warranted a finding that the consideration was inadequate, but this fact alone is insufficient to cancel a voluntary, conveyance. 7 Tex.Jur. p. 939, §§ 12 and 14; 9 C.J., p. 1175, § 35; 4 R.C.L., p. 501, § 15; Newman v. Newman (Tex.Civ.App.) 86 S.W. 635.

We are unable to determine just what character of fraud the petition undertakes to charge. Upon examination of the evidence no fraud whatever was proven, and the testimony of defendant’s witnesses clearly shows none was practiced. The testimony of defendant’s witnesses may- be disregarded because the plaintiffs’ evidence raises no issue of fraud.

In view of the highly speculative and uncertain value of the royalty interest at the time, it cannot be said the consideration was grossly inadequate.

The evidence shows Ann Freeman to be an aged negress, evidently ignorant, and the vigor of her mind perhaps somewhat impaired by old age, though there is no allegation that her mind was impaired.

Viewing the evidence in its aspect most favorable to appellants, it appears Ann Freeman was an aged, ignorant negress, and conveyed the royalty interest for an inadequate consideration. Under these circumstances, slight evidence of fraud practiced upon her by appellee inducing the -conveyance would have sufficed to carry the case to the jury upon the issue of fraud (see authorities above cited, and Varner v. Carson, 59 Tex. 303, and Burch v. Smith, 15 Tex. 219, 65 Am.Dec. 154); but there is no such -evidence of fraud shown by appellants, direct or circumstantial, and the defendant’s evidence abundantly shows the contrary.

In the state of the evidence the verdict was properly instructed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The
undersigned, Jack N. Mayer, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer
and Director of Powersafe Technology Corp. (the Company), certifies, under
the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November
25, 2008

| |        |                                     
| | ------ | ------------------------------------
| | By:    | /s/ Jack N.
 Mayer                  
| |        |                                     
| | Name:  | Jack N.
 Mayer                      
| | Title: | President,
 Chief Executive Officer,
| |        | Treasurer,
 and Director            
| |        | (Principal
 Executive, Financial &  
| |        | Accounting
 Officer)                

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.

9

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Joel David Neely , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00114

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 115th District Court of Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. F 15223 ). Memorandum Opi nion delivered by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter* participating

. *Justice Carter, Retired, Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm th e judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Joel David Neely , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 12, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey

, Clerk
#### BANKERS’ MORTGAGE COMPANY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, Plaintiff in Error, v. Andrew B. JOHNSON, Defendant in Error.

No. 1388.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 25, 1933.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1933.

Frank Oltorf, of Marlin, for plaintiff in-error.

Cecil R. Glass, of Marlin, for defendant in error.

GALLAGHER, Chief Justice.

This suit originated in the justice court, precinct No. 1, Falls county, in which court Andrew B. Johnson, hereinafter called plaintiff, recovered a judgment against the Bankers’ Mortgage Company of Topeka, Kansas, hereinafter called defendant, for the sum of $125.44. Defendant prosecuted an appeal from that judgment. The Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland was surety on its appeal bond. The county court of that county being without civil jurisdiction, the appeal was filed in the district court. A trial there resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant and said surety on its appeal-bond for the sum of $125.44, from which judgment defendant has sued out a writ of error to this court.

The pleadings of the parties, the testimony introduced, and the issues of law involved iu *598this ease are all substantially the same as in the case of Bankers’ Mortgage Co. of Topeka, Kansas, v. Ewell A. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.) 61 S.W.(2d) 563, this day decided.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.4





Fidelity
National Financial, Inc.

601 Riverside Avenue


Jacksonville,
Florida 32204


 


October
6, 2017


 


CF Corporation


1701 Village Center Circle


Las Vegas, Nevada 89134


 


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the Second Amended and
Restated Investor Agreement of even date hereof (the “Second A&R Investor Agreement”) among CF Corporation
(“CF Corp”), Blackstone Tactical Opportunities Fund II L.P. (the “BTO Fund”), GSO Capital
Partners LP (“GSO”) and Fidelity Financial Ventures, Inc. (“FNF”) that amends the Amended
and Restated Investor Agreement dated as of June 6, 2017 (the “First A&R Investor Agreement”) between CF
Corp, the BTO Fund, GSO and FNF. Each capitalized term used but not defined in this letter will have the meaning ascribed to it
in the First A&R Investor Agreement or the Merger Agreement.


 


1.                 
Fees and Expenses.


 


a.                  
As consideration for entering into the Second A&R Investor Agreement you agree to pay (or cause to be paid) to FNF (or to one
or more Affiliates designated by FNF), on the Closing, an amount equal to $1,100,000 (the “Amendment Fee”).


 


b.                 
You agree that, once paid, the Amendment Fee or any part thereof payable hereunder shall not be refundable under any circumstances,
except as otherwise agreed in writing. The Amendment Fee shall not be subject to reduction by way of setoff counterclaim and shall
be in addition to any other fees, costs and expenses payable to FNF.


 


2.                 
Other Provisions. The terms and provisions of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14., 15, 16 and 17 of the First A&R Investor
Agreement are incorporated herein and shall apply mutatis mutandis to this letter.


 


[Remainder of page
intentionally left blank]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 





	 	Sincerely,	 
	 	 	 
	 	Fidelity Financial Ventures, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael L. Gravelle	 
	 	 	Name:	Michael L. Gravelle	 
	 	 	Title:  	 EVP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary 	 







 














	Agreed to and accepted:	 
	 	 
	CF CORPORATION	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Douglas Newton	 
	 	Name: 	Douglas Newton	 
	 	Title: 	Chief Financial Officer 	 


  








    	[Signature Page to Amendment Fee Letter]
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3172 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3172

  To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to provide for 
State and tribal management and protection of wild free-roaming horses 
                  and burros, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2015

 Mr. Stewart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to provide for 
State and tribal management and protection of wild free-roaming horses 
                  and burros, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Wild Horse Oversight Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE AND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF WILD FREE-ROAMING 
              HORSES AND BURROS.

    Public Law 92-195 (commonly known as the ``Wild Free-Roaming Horses 
and Burros Act'') is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 12. STATE AND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), at the 
request of the legislature or Governor of a State or the governing body 
of a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Secretary of Agriculture shall allow the State or federally 
recognized Indian tribe to assume all management and protection 
functions under this Act regarding wild free-roaming horses and burros 
on land within the boundaries of the State or federally recognized 
Indian tribe. After a State or federally recognized Indian tribe 
assumes such functions, wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be 
managed by the State or federally recognized Indian tribe in accordance 
with this Act and in the same manner as any other non-federally 
regulated species regarding functions not specified in this Act.
    ``(b) Inventory.--The Secretary concerned shall continue to 
maintain the inventory required by section 3(b)(1).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### W. L. LAWHON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 21143.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 24, 1940.

Alvin F. Nemir, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for forgery, punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

Since the jurisdiction of this court attached appellant has filed his personal affidavit advising that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal, and the same is dismissed at his request.
# ~"'''''''~1....a. -'] ACfION: Supplemental notice ofproposed rulcmaking (NPRM); reopening ofcomm rif'•.•.•. :·'e .•••• ·..•.•. 

## {.C-0- period. "." -_. I 

# .51, AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. Airworthiness Dlrec:tives; Sasb AS. Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A 

### (SAABlSF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes Modified inAccordance with Supplemen Type Certificate (STC) STOO224Wl-D, STOOI46WI·D. or SA984GL-D IDocket No. FAA·.zOlo-0041; Directorate Ideattner 2009-NM-o~O-ADI 

### R1N ZIZO-AA64 F«Ierai Aviation Administration DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

### '4910-1J-PI

14CFR 

### Par139

SUMMARY: We arerevising anearlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Sub AS. Sub Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A (SAABfSF340A) and SAAB 3408 airplanes. The first supplemental NPRM would have required inspecting lhe fuselage surface forcorrosion andcracking behind the external adapter plate of the 

### antennae installation. and repair ifnecessary. The fi~t 

### supplemental NPRM resulted
oreport of acrack found behind the external adapter plate of the antennae during inspeclion. Similar cracking was found on two additional airplanes, and extensive corrosion was found on one airplane. This action revises the first supplemental NPRM 

### correcting an STCnumber, which would expand theapplicability ofthe first supplemental NPRM. We are proposing this second supplemental NPRM to deled and correct corrosion and cracking behind the external adapter plate ofthe antennae of eert il'i""""'s-;:;;",,;;', damage-tolerant structure. which could result 

### inreduced structural 

### i.ntegrity and consequent rapid depressurization ofthe airplane. 115W DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by [INSERT DATE 

### 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OFPUBLICATION INTHE FEDERAL REGISTER].

FAAForm1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY