alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 9

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that:

The Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ V. Prem Watsa                   
|V. Prem Watsa                       
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: March 8, 2013                 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ David Bonham                          
|David Bonham                              
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date: March 8, 2013                       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Rosie Heimbinder, Appellant, v. Daniel Sullivan, Respondent.

Motion for reargument denied, with costs. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
#### Jesse D. Musgrove v. State.

No. 25661.

January 23, 1952.

Hon. W. B. Browder, Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was adjudged to be in contempt of court by reason of his violation of an injunction against maintaining a common nuisance, and attempts to appeal from the imposition of a fine of $100 for such contempt.

In Lawley v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 14, 36 S.W. (2d) 1035, we said:

> “We are concerned with one thing only in the motion and that is the proposition that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal. No doubt exists as to the correctness of the proposition. An appeal does not lie from a judgment of contempt. Crow v. State, 24 Texas 12; Ex Parte Kilgore, 3 Tex App. 249; Carter v. State, 4 Texas App. 165; Borrer v. State, (Texas Crim. App.), 63 S.W. 630; Borrer v. State, (Texas Crim. App.), 63 S.W. 1133; Long v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep. 403, 199 S.W. 619, in which the following language is found. ‘From a judgment of contempt this court can give relief only on writ of habeas corpus *607when the relator is in custody.’ ”

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 349PA16

Filed 3 November 2017

KB AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION, LLC

v.

JACK M. BERRY, JR. and 585 GOFORTH ROAD, LLC

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision 

of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 790 S.E.2d 559 (2016), affirming an order 

of summary judgment entered on 6 February 2015 by Judge Richard L. Doughton in 

Superior Court, Watauga County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 9 October 2017.

Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, L.L.P., by Byron L. 

Saintsing, for plaintiff-appellant. 

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Clint S. Morse and 

John H. Small, for defendant-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
#### Annie G. Green, as Administratrix, etc., of William J. Green, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Lozier Motor Company of New York, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce verdict to §5,000, in which event judgment as so modified and order affirmed, without costs. -No opinion. Settle order on notice.
#### Frank C. Hollister v. Charles B. Barker.

Motion denied on terms stated in order.
(No. 23070.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, *vs.*The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, Appellant.

*Opinion filed December 15, 1937.*

Shaw and Wilson, JJ., dissenting.

Taylor, Miller, Busch & Boyden, Cooke, Sullivan & Ricks, Wilson & McIlvaine, and Robert N. Holt, for appellant.

Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, (Jacob Sham-berg, Manuel E. Cowen, and Brendan Q. O’Brien, of counsel,) for appellee.

Per Curiam :

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Cook county against the appellant, the Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, and in favor of the People of the State of Illinois, in the amount of $671,561.49 for alleged unpaid personal property taxes for the year 1931.

*436The errors assigned and argued are identical with those in *People*v. *Commonwealth Edison Co. (ante,*p. 260.) For the reasons therein stated the judgment of the county court of Cook county is reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Shaw and Wilson, JJ., dissenting.
Exhibit 4.17


 


 


Memo of Supplementary Matters Relating
to the Domestic Guaranteed Foreign Loan Agreements Between the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Shanghai Huangpu Sub-branch,
and Home Inns Hotel Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.


 


Home Inns Hotel Management (Shanghai) Co.,
Ltd. (below, “Shanghai Home Inns”) applied for an aggregate of RMB 777.2 million in standby letters of credit from
the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Shanghai Huangpu Sub-branch (below, “Huangpu Sub-branch”) to use as a
guarantee for the US$117.0 million loan for which Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc. (“Home Inns Group”) applied
to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Europe) S.A., Madrid Branch. Now, the standby letters of credit have been issued
in their entirety, and the foreign loan to Home Inns Group has been disbursed in its entirety.


 


Through amicable negotiations between Shanghai
Home Inns and ICBC, the parties have made supplementary explanations of the matters below:


 


		1.	During the term of the guarantee, if Shanghai Home Inns needs to carry out a distribution of profits, it must first notify
the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Shanghai Huangpu Sub-branch. If other members of Home Inns Group need to carry out
a distribution of profits, this requirement does not apply.



 


		2.	Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc. may not make an early repayment of the loans within the first 12 months after they have
been disbursed. Beginning from the 13th month, if it needs to make an early repayment of all or a part of the loans, it must apply
in writing to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Europe) S.A., Madrid Branch, within 15 business days prior to the proposed
date of repayment, and only then may it make the early repayment.



 


		3.	Under circumstances of market stability, the occupancy rate of Home Inns as a whole may not be below 85%; if special circumstances
are encountered, the occupancy rate of Home Inns as a whole may be below 85%.



 


Hereby memorialized.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


Below is the page for the stamps of the two parties.


 


Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Shanghai Huangpu Sub-branch


 


[stamp]


 


Home Inns Hotel Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.


 


[stamp]


 


July 3, 2013




 






    	2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 30262

BELLE COMPANY, L.L.C.; KENT RECYCLING SERVICES, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:12

- CV

- 247

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court, No. 14

- 493, Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. United States Army Corps of Engineers . The Supreme Court vacated our affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of the
claims before it for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction and remanded this case

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 29, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-30262 Document: 00513616167 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2016No. 13

- 30262

2 to us for further proceedings consistent with the C ourt’s opinion in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. , 578 U. S. ___ (2016). Accordingly, we VACATE the
district court’s dismissal and REMAND this case to the district court for the Middle District of Louisiana for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. Case: 13-30262 Document: 00513616167 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
|Exhibit 99.1


CERTIFICATION 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 annual report on Form 10-K of Arch Wireless, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, C.
Edward Baker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:   March 28, 2003 |  | /s/ C. Edward BakerC. Edward Baker    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHAWN WYGANT,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-11684-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

MARY STRAND and MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE OBJECTIONS

The Honorable Charles E. Binder issued a report and recommendation [Dkt. # 17] on January

18, 2011, recommending granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 15] and dismissing

all of Plaintiff’s claims except for his substantive due process claim against Defendant Mary Strand.

Defendants filed timely objections on January 28 and January 31, 2011 [Dkt. # 18, 19], and Plaintiff

filed a request for an extension of time to file objections on February 4, 2011 [Dkt # 20].

Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s request on February 8, 2011 [Dkt. # 21].

Plaintiff requests a twenty-one-day extension of the usual fourteen-day period for filing

objections to a report and recommendations. Plaintiff, who is not a lawyer and has appeared pro se

in this case, emphasizes that he did not receive the report and recommendations until January 28,

2011 because of weather-related delivery problems and that he never received the underlying motion

to dismiss. In response, Defendants note that Plaintiff had several opportunities to request a copy

of the motion to dismiss—he never responded to Judge Binder’s order providing an extended

briefing schedule, for example. Defendants contend that Plaintiff should not be permitted to object

to the report and recommendation after not filing a brief in opposition to the motion. 

1:09-cv-11684-TLL-CEB Doc # 23 Filed 02/15/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 152
-2-

In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant and the fact that Defendants’ motion to dismiss

apparently did not reach him via U.S. Mail, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file

objections will be granted. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se

complaints should be “liberally construed” and held to “less stringent standards” (quoting Estelle

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))). Importantly, Plaintiff’s objections must be responsive to

Judge Binder’s report and recommendation. It must be tailored to address Judge Binder’s legal

conclusions, and not necessarily the arguments raised in Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file

objections [Dkt. # 20] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s objections shall be filed on or before February

22, 2011. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 15, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 15, 2011.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-11684-TLL-CEB Doc # 23 Filed 02/15/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 153
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

|   | 1. | 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/                Clay Hansen                                                                                                                                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Clay                Hansen,Chairman,                President and Director(Principal                Executive Officer)Dated:                November 14, 2007 |   |

----
#### BARKER et al. v. OUACHITA ICE & UTILITIES CO. et al.*

No. 4648.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1933.

Hawthorn, Stafford & Pitts, of Alexandria, for appellants.

Hugh Tullis and J. M. Reeves, both of Vi-dalia, for appellees.

*

Rehearing denied January 3, 1934.

MILLS, Judge.

The wife and minor children of Clifford V. Barker claim compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (No. 20 of 1914, as amended) for the accidental death of their husband and father by electrocution on the 20th day of March, 1932, while working for the defendant company. There being no dispute as to liability or the period for which compensation is payable, the only remaining issue is as to the amount of compensation.

The testimony shows that at the time of his death and for about six months prior thereto Barker was employed to work when and as heeded at the rate of 35 cents per hdur to make repairs on an electric power line. That on these occasions he only worked the time necessary to complete the repairs. That when not so employed he worked for others at his trade as an electrician.

The lower court found that if employed regularly, deceased’s full day would have been ten hours, which, at the rate of 35 cents per hour, would have made a daily wage of $3.50; and that plaintiffs were entitled to compensation based on a seven-day week. Plaintiffs do not complain, though the testimony establishes a day of eleven hours, nor does defendant complain of the seven-day weekly allowance, though only a six-day week is prayed for.

Whatever confusion may have existed in our jurisprudence as to what constitutes the “daily rate of pay at which the service rendered by the injured employee is recompensed under the contract of hiring in force at the time of the injury,” as provided in the act as finally amended by Act No. 242 of. 1928, is now dissipated by the decision of our Supreme Court in the case of Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 177 La. 716, 149 So. 434, which, afteri ¡reviewing the jurisprudence, squarely holds that the daily rate of pay of the man working intermittently, as in this case, is not what he actually earned, but what he would have earned if employed for a full working day.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37680

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

GEORGE LOPEZ CASTILLO ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 374

Filed: March 1, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, S tate of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; S pencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

George Lopez Castillo pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance , I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(1)

, and to concealment of evidence, I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty

pleas, the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Castillo is a persistent violator. The

district court sentenced Castillo to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum per iod of

confinement of three years , for possession of a controlled substance and a concurrent term of five

years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for concealment of evidence. The

district court suspended the sentences and placed Casti llo on probation. Castillo thereafter

violated the terms of his probation by possessing methamphetamine. The district court revoked

probation and ordered execution of Castillo’s original sentences. Castillo filed an I.C.R. 35

motion, which the district court denied. Castillo appeals.2 A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (200 6); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 8 45, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huff man , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including the new information submitted with Castillo ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order d enying Castillo ’s

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
----

----

| 1.   | 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ COLIN MACDONALD                                                                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Colin MacDonald                                                                         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and President                                                   |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                           |
|   |                                                                                    |
|   |                                                                                    |
|   | /s/ MONIKA SAGAR                                                                        |
|   | Monika Sagar                                                                            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)                          |
|   |                                                                                    |
|   |                                                                                    |

----