alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1.1

CERTIFICATION

I, W. W.
Boisture, Jr., principal executive officer of Hawker Beechcraft Acquisition Company, LLC (the Company), hereby certify that:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 28, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ W. W. Boisture, Jr.                                     
|W. W. Boisture, Jr., President
(Principal Executive Officer)

May 3, 2010
Exhibit 10.3





GSO
Capital Partners LP

345 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10154


 


October
6, 2017


 


CF Corporation


1701 Village Center Circle


Las Vegas, Nevada 89134


 


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the First Amendment to
the Side Letter of even date hereof (the “Amendment Letter”) between GSO Capital Partners LP (“GSO”)
and CF Corporation, a Cayman Islands exempted corporation (“CF Corp”) that amends the Side Letter dated as of
May 24, 2017 (the “Side Letter”) between GSO and CF Corp. Each capitalized term used but not defined
in this letter will have the meaning ascribed to it in the Side Letter or the Merger Agreement.


 


1.                 
Fees and Expenses.


 


a.                  
As consideration for entering into the Amendment Letter you agree to pay (or cause to be paid) to GSO (or to one or more Affiliates
designated by GSO), on the Closing, an amount equal to $2,900,000 (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 GSO.


 


2.                 
Other Provisions. The terms and provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Side Letter are
incorporated herein and shall apply mutatis mutandis to this letter.


 


[Remainder of page
intentionally left blank]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


 





	 	Sincerely,	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	GSO CAPITAL PARTNERS LP 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Marisa Beeney	 
	 	 	Name:	Marisa Beeney 	 
	 	 	Title:	Authorized Signatory	 







 





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




 






    	[Signature Page to Amendment Fee Letter]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 E0 02 3 . ALVI N FERRELL v

. J AMES O. GREASON et a l

.

Pu rs uan t to Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 4 0 (b ), Al v i n Ferrel l has fi l ed an em erg en cy

m o ti o n req u es t i ng an ex t en s i on o f t i m e t o fi l e an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary ap p eal
i n t h e ab o v e-s ty l ed m at t er. Ferrel l ’ s m o ti o n is h ereb y GRANTED. He s h al l fi l e h i s
ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal n o l at er t h an J an u ary 2 2 , 2 0 2 1

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## December 22, 2020

12/22/2020
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1370** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. GILBERT KITILA , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. ( 8:09

- cv - 00455

- DKC )

Submitted : November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

G ilbert Kitila, Appellant Pro Se. Carol Barthel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gilbert Kitila appeals the district court ’ s order granting the government ’s motion to reduce to judgment tax assessments made against Kitila for unpaid federal income taxes and penalties for the 1988, 1989, and 1990 tax years . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Kitila , No. 8:09

- cv - 00455

- DKC (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2010)
. 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.

AFFIRMED
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10004 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Willis James Duvall, Jr.,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 58

- 1

Before **Graves, Willett,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Willis James Duvall, Jr., has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Duvall has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 24, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10004 Document: 00515873291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2021No. 20

- 10004

2 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5 th**  **C ir**  **. R.** 42. 2. Case: 20-10004 Document: 00515873291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2021
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 346 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-692, CP2024-701.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22617 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### SCHUMACHER CO. v. McLANE et al.

No. 8149.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Nov. 20, 1935.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1935.

*478W. A. Morrison, and Roy Baskin, both of Cameron,'for appellant.

Henderson, Kidd & Henderson, of Cameron, for appellees.

McClendon, chief justice.

This is a garnishment proceeding originating in the justice court upon a claim for $173.72 in favor of Schumacher Company (appellant) against Sustek. Garnishment writs were issued against Mc-Lane and others (appellees) upon the theory that they were indebted to Sustek. Judgments in the justice and county courts were in favor of garnishees, and the. Schu-macher *Company*has appealed.

The controlling facts are without substantial dispute. Sustek made a general assignment for the benefit of all accepting creditors to McLane, as trustee. The assigned property consisted of a stock of merchandise, store fixtures, and accounts. McLane sold the property to a corporation of which he was general manager, and in which he owned a majority of the capital stock for $491.41. A few days later this corporation sold the property to other garnishees for $1,400. The claims of accepting creditors aggregated $3,017.15. It is not ■ contended that the value of the assigned property was as much as the aggregate of these claims. The Schumacher Company did not accept under the assignment. *,*

Error, variously assigned, may be reduced to two contentions:

1. The assignment was fraudulent, in that there was a secret agreement between McLane and Sustek whereby the latter was to reacquire the property through his son.

2. The sale to the corporation was fraudulent, and McLane was therefore liable to account for the difference between the $1,400 and the $491.49 which he distributed to consenting creditors; or in any event between $1,400 and one-third of ($1,-005.72) their claims.

Without any intimation as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the allegations of fraud either in the execution of the assignment or in the sale to the corporation, the record would not support' a judgment for appellant for the following reasons:

> “No fraudulent act, intent or purpose of the assignor or assignee shall have the effect to defeat the assignment or to deprive the creditors consenting thereto from the benefits thereof.” R.S. Art. 267; Blum v. Welborne, 58 Tex. 157; 5 Tex.Jur. p. 101, § 46.

A nonconsenting creditor’s interest in the assigned property extends only to any balance remaining after payment in full of consenting creditors’ claims and proper costs -of administration. He can garnishee the assignee only for “any excess of such estate remaining in his hands after the payment to the consenting creditors the amount of their debts and the costs and expenses of executing the assignment.” R.S. art. 271. Where, as here, the assigned assets are insufficient to pay the claims of consenting creditors in full, a nonconsent'ing creditor cannot complain of acts of the assignee in administering the estate. 5 Tex.Jur. p. 108, and authorities there cited.

Other questions presented are immaterial.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1



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



AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Blackbird Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”)
for the period ended January 31, 2010, each of the undersigned Normand Terroux, the Chief Executive 01ficer, the Chief Accounting
Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of each of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:



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



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

|                 |                                                        
|---------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|October 12, 2010 | //s//
    Normand Terroux                              
|                 |                                                        
|                 | By: Normand Terroux, president, Chief Executive Officer
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4620-17T4

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

ESTATE OF ADDISON HEWITT,

Deceased.

_______________________________

Submitted March 27, 2019 – Decided April 3, 2019

Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Burlington County, Docket No. 

2014-1738.

Mark J. Molz, attorney for appellant Joan Hewitt. 

McNeely McGuigan & Esmi, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent Margaret Hewitt (Lori M. McNeely, on the 

brief).

Law Office of McInerney and Schmidt, LLC, attorneys 

for minor respondents (Sandford F. Schmidt, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-4620-17T4

The parties having informed the court that this matter is settled, this appeal 

is dismissed, with prejudice and without costs.
6/1/2011 

Number of units meeting the current MACT floors: 

Units meeting “Lignite” Hg beyond-thefloor Respective Hg + PM + HCl floor “Bituminous/subbituminous” Hg floor PExisting source 3 39 151 New source* 3 0 4 

* Units meeting new-source floor on a lb/MWh or lb/GWh basis based on 2010 ICR data Current MACT floors: 

MACT floor “Lignite” Hg beyond-thefloor “Bituminous/subbituminous” Hg floor PM floor Existing source 4 lb/TBtu 1.20 lb/TBtu 0.03 lb/MMBtu 0New source 0.04 lb/GWh 

(4 lb/TBtu) 

0.0002 lb/GWh 

(0.0185 lb/TBtu) 

0.05 lb/MWh 

(0.02 lb/MMBtu) 

(0.0
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Application to Amend

Section 333 Exemption No. 11306

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-1023

April 12, 2015

Petitioner:

Hawk Aerial, LLC

Kevin J. Gould, CEO

114 Homesteads Rd.

Placitas, NM 87043

Cell: 425-218-3723

Email: kevin.gould@hawkaerial.com

Website: www.hawkaerial.com

Greetings,

By letter from the FAA dated April 8, 2015, an exemption was granted to Hawk Aerial for relief under 

Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 Regulatory Docket No. FAA2014-1023. 

Hawk Aerial hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI Phantom 3 

models. Relevant facts and reasoning are:

 DJI has announced they will discontinue the Phantom 2 model which was approved in Hawk 

Arial’s Exemption No. 11306.

 Size, weight and performance specification of the DJI Phantom 3 (“P3”) are substantially similar 

to those of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ (“P2”) in all relevant respects:

o Gross weight: P3=1280g; P2=1242g.

o Diagonal Size (including propellers): P3=590mm; P2=579mm.

o Maximum Ascent Speed: P3=5m/sec; P2=6m/sec.

o Maximum Descent Speed: P3=3m/sec; P2=2m/sec.

o Vertical Hover Accuracy: P3=+/-10cm; P2=+/-80cm.

o Horizontal Hover Accuracy: P3=+/-1m; P2=+/-2.5m.

o Maximum Speed: P3=16m/sec; P2=15m/sec.

 The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 11306 apply 

without modification to this application to include the DJI Phantom 3 model in Exemption No. 

11306.

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional 

information that is required.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Gould

Airman Certificate #2830326

CEO, Hawk Aerial LLC
#### THOMAS v. STATE.

No. 19075.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1937.

Jim H. Letts and S. F. Hill, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for assault to rob; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Our attention is attracted by what purports to be an application for certiorari filed in this record on the 24th of May, 1937, praying that we issue a writ of cer-tiorari commending the clerk of the criminal district court of Harris county, Tex., to forward to this court a perfect transcript of the record in this cause, in accordance with law. Examining this application, we note that it is said that the defendant was denied the right for time in which to notify counsel, who resided in another county, and that the court refused to appoint counsel to represent him. No copies of any documents relied upon to verify or support the matters referred to are attached to the application. for certiorari. This court will not attempt a useless thing. In ordinary felony cases trial courts are not 'required by law to appoint counsel. The felony charge herein is not capital, hence no duty rested upon the trial court in the matter of appointment of counsel to defend. If appellant made any motion for time to notify counsel, such fact is not shown in the record, nor made known to us by any certified paper accompanying the application for certiorari.

The request for writ of certiorari is denied, and the facts being sufficient, in the absence of any bill of exceptions, the judgment will be affirmed.
EXHIBIT  32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of ENHANCE SKIN PRODUCTS INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Samuel S. Asculai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








By:
/s/ Dr. Samuel S. AsculaiDate:  March 17, 2010

Dr. Samuel S AsculaiChief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMEER ALGHUSAIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JASON L. NEMETH; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15110 

D.C. No. 5:20-cv-05175-BLF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Ameer Alghusain appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of 

injuries Alghusain sustained in Ohio. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-15110 

San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alghusain’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction because Alghusain failed to establish that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits of his claims. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary 

injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities 

tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest). 

We reject as without merit Alghusain’s contentions that the district court 

was required to grant his motion because it was unopposed and that the district 

court should have granted Alghusain an opportunity to file an amended motion. 

AFFIRMED.
Order entered January 3, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01670

- CV

D&J REAL ESTATE SERV ICES, INC. D/B/A RE/MAX PREMIER GROUP , ET AL., Appellants

V.

GREG L. PERKINS , ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 429t h Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429

- 00559

- 2011



### O RDER

We GRANT appellants’ December 11, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file their

notice of appeal. The notice of appeal filed by appellants on December 3 , 2013 is deemed timely

for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the 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 who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Scott J. PolleiScott J. PolleiExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer