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








BILL OF SALE
BY THIS BILL OF SALE DIAMOND HEAD 2 (IRELAND) DAC ("Seller") does
hereby sell, grant and transfer, for good consideration in accordance with the terms of an aircraft sale and purchase agreement dated as of June 4, 2019 ("Sale Agreement") between (among others) Seller and Contrail Aviation Support, LLC ("Buyer"), all its rights, title and interest in and to the aircraft specified below and as more fully defined in the Sale Agreement ("Aircraft") to Buyer for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Seller:
one Airbus A321-100 aircraft with manufacturer's serial number 583 with two (2) CFM56-5B2 engines bearing serial numbers 779182 and 779127
and the Aircraft is sold "as is, where is".
Seller warrants to Buyer and its respective successors and assigns that it hereby conveys full legal title to the Aircraft free from all Liens, and Seller agrees to defend such title forever against all claims and demands whatsoever.
To the extent permitted by applicable law, no representations, guarantees or warranties of any kind are given by Seller as to the condition of the Aircraft, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise.
Capitalized words and expressions used in this Bill of Sale have the meanings given to them in the Sale Agreement.
THIS BILL OF SALE IS GOVERNED BY NEW YORK LAW.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Diamond Head 2 (Ireland) DAC has caused this Bill of Sale     to     be     duly     executed     at 4:17 am    New York time on February 3, 2020 and delivered to Buyer while the Aircraft was located at St. Athan, Cardiff, UK


SIGNED


/s/ Rosemary Waddingham 
for and on behalf of
DIAMOND HEAD 2 (IRELAND) DAC


Name:  Rosemary Waddingham
Title:     Attorney























Acceptance Certificate
MSN 583
Contrail Aviation Support, LLC ("Buyer") hereby certifies that pursuant to the Aircraft Sale Agreement dated as of June 4, 2019 among, inter alios, Diamond Head 2 (Ireland) DAC ("Seller") and Buyer ("Sale Agreement"):
(1)    Buyer has inspected the Aircraft for itself and the Aircraft is in all respects satisfactory to Buyer;
(2)    Buyer has accepted delivery of the Aircraft; and
(3)    Buyer acknowledges that it is purchasing the Aircraft in an "AS IS, WHERE IS" condition and that the Seller is making no representations or warranties as to the condition of the Aircraft.
Capitalized words and expressions used in this Acceptance Certificate have the meanings given to them in the Sale Agreement.
This Acceptance Certificate is governed by New York law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Buyer has caused this Acceptance Certificate to be duly executed on January 31, 2020 and delivered to Seller.
SIGNED


/s/ Joseph G. Kuhn    
for and on behalf of
CONTRAIL AVIATION SUPPORT, LLC
Name: Joseph G. Kuhn
Title: CEO








18674014v1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Wayne A. Doss, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Texas Sweet Crude Oil Corp for the 3rd quarter ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Texas Sweet Crude Oil Corp.





Date: November 12, 2010


/s/ Wayne A DossWayne A DossPresident, C.E.O. and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
(173 La. 396)

#### STRUBECK v. CESKA.

No. 29944.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 1929.

*75James N. Brittingham, Jr., and Russell J. St. Paul, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Paul W. Maloney, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

BRUNOT, J.

This is a suit for a separation a mensa et thoro and for a judgment recognizing the paraphernal claims of the plaintiff and decreeing her to be the owner of certain alleged separate property in the petition.

There was judgment in the court below in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant decreeing a separation from bed and board, and reserving the defendant’s rights in the community. Erom this judgment, the plaintiff appealed. The appellee has filed a motion in this court to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the judgment appealed from was in favor'of the appellant.

Appellant, the plaintiff in the suit, coupled with her suit for a separation from bed and board a demand to be decreed the owner of certain alleged paraphernal property. The judgment rendered is silent as to this demand. Inasmuch as that issue was presented by her petition, this was sufficient basis for the áp-peal.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 531

To designate the Great Western Scenic Trail as a study trail under the

National Trails System Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

Mr. HANSEN (for himself, Mr. ORTON, and Mrs. WALDHOLTZ) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To designate the Great Western Scenic Trail as a study

trail under the National Trails System Act, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. POTENTIAL ADDITION OF GREAT WESTERN

4 SCENIC TRAIL TO NATIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM

5 GREAT WESTERN TRAIL.

6 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

7 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(38) The Great Western Scenic Trail, a system of

10 trails to accommodate a variety of travel users in a cor-
2

•HR 531 IH

1 ridor of approximately 3,100 miles in length extending

2 from the Arizona-Mexico border to the Idaho-Montana3 Canada border, following the approximate route depicted

4 on the map identified as ‘Great Western Trail Corridor,

5 1988’, which shall be on file and available for public in6 spection in the Office of the Chief of the Forest Service,

7 United States Department of Agriculture. The trail study

8 shall be conducted by the Forest Service in consultation

9 with the Department of the Interior and shall include a

10 comprehensive and detailed identification of all rights-of11 way crossing or potentially affected by such trail together

12 with the holder of such rights-of-way, identification of any

13 potential right-of-way so crossing or potentially affected

14 and the purpose of such potential right-of-way, and a list15 ing of any private property that would be included within

16 the trail and an identification of the owner of the private

17 property. The Secretary of Agriculture shall examine in

18 such study the appropriateness of motorized trail use

19 along the trail.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                       FIRST FORTIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



Know all men by these present, that the undersigned directors and officers of
First Fortis Life Insurance Company, a New York corporation, hereby constitute
and appoint Robert B. Pollock, Larry M. Cains, Katherine Greenzang and Douglas
R. Lowe, and each of them, the individual's true and lawful attorneys-in-fact
and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for the person
and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Annual Report on Form 10K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, to be
filed by First Fortis Life Insurance Company, required by the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, or any amendment to such report, and all other documents
in connection therewith to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact as agents or any of them, or the substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Signature                                        Title
         ---------                                        -----

<S>                                 <C>
/s/ Robert B. Pollock               President and Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
---------------------------------   of the Board (Principal Executive Officer)
Robert B. Pollock



/s/ Terry J. Kryshak                 Sr. Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
---------------------------------    and Director
Terry J. Kryshak



/s/ Larry M. Cains                  Treasurer and Director
--------------------------------    (Principal Financial Officer)
Larry M. Cains



/s/ Barbara R. Hege                 Chief Financial Officer and Director
--------------------------------
Barbara R. Hege
</TABLE>





<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

First Fortis Life Insurance Company
Power of Attorney
Page Two

<TABLE>
<S>                                 <C>


/s/ Allen R. Freedman               Director
--------------------------------
Allen R. Freedman




/s/ Clarence E. Galson              Director
--------------------------------
Clarence E. Galston




/s/ Dale Edward Gardner             Director
--------------------------------
Dale Edward Gardner




/s/ Kenneth Warwick Nelson          Director
--------------------------------
Kenneth Warwick Nelson




/s/ Esther L. Nelson                Director
--------------------------------
Esther L. Nelson
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6785

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CEDRIC TYLER NEWSOME, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00093-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:06-cv-00165-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric Tyler Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cedric Tyler Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order and a subsequent order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Newsome has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Newsome’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
#### Patrick Brennan, Respondent, v. Peter J. Farmer, Appellant, Impleaded with James D. Farmer and Mary H. Farmer.

Judgment and order affirmed, without costs. All concurred, except Williams, J., who dissented upon the ground that the court had the power to allow the guardian his costs and expenses and that the refusal to do so was an improper exercise of discretion.
#### National Amusements, Inc., Appellant, v Scottsdale Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

[676 NYS2d 590]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered January 27, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion granted, and defendants are declared obligated to defend plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action.

Plaintiff, which operates a motion-picture theater on Long Island, entered into a contract with defendant Aero whereby the latter was to provide security services for the theater, and was to maintain a comprehensive general-liability insurance policy naming plaintiff as an additional insured. Aero neglected *397to add plaintiff as an additional insured. Nevertheless, Aero still had a contractual duty to defend and indemnify its customer for liability from negligence in connection with its performance of security services. Furthermore, Aero’s liability insurance policy obligated its own insurer, National Casualty Company (sued herein under the concededly mistaken name, Scottsdale Insurance Company), to defend any suit against Aero based on a damage claim for personal injury.

The underlying claim of injury stems from an ongoing altercation during a movie show that ultimately led to a stabbing of one of the patrons in front of the theater. This was a risk within the scope of the policy, entitling plaintiff to an insurer-sponsored defense in the underlying action *(ZKZ Assocs. v CNA Ins. Co.,*89 NY2d 990). That the duty to defend such an action is broader than the duty to indemnify *(Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp.,*80 NY2d 640, 648) is precisely the reason why such liability coverage has been described as “ ‘litigation insurance’ ” *(International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co.,*35 NY2d 322, 326).

Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to a declaration to defend, on its motion for summary judgment. We do not reach the question of indemnification, since that duty will be determined by the outcome of the underlying action at trial. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.
#### LEWIS & LAMBERT METAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. Donna JACKSON and Teresa Holley, individually and as next friend of Doven Holley and Kieran Teak Holley.

No. 94-1065.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1997.

Appeal from 191st District Court, Dallas County; David K. Brooks, Judge.

Prior report: Tex.App., 914 S.W.2d 584.

The agreed motion to grant application for writ of error and remand cause to trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with settlement is granted in part. The judgments of the courts below are vacated without reference to the merits and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties. The motion to abate is dismissed as moot.

BAKER, J., not sitting.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 10, 2011
    /s/ JEFFREY S. OLSONJeffrey S. OlsonChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: March 10, 2011
    /s/ MARK LANGERMark LangerExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)   - 126 -
#### C. H. KRAUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI COAL CORPORATION and Electric Shovel Coal Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 6315-6322.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 27, 1938.

See, also, 93 F.2d 515.

J. Fred Gilster, of Chester, Ill., for appellant.

Walter T. Gunn and Harold F. Lindley, both of Danville, Ill., for appellees.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the order of this court entered this day, .it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the decree óf the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned, Clement B. Knapp, Jr., is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of AMB Financial Corp. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
          78o(d)] 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 covered by the
          Report.

     This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.



March 23, 2005                           /s/ Clement B. Knapp, Jr.
                                         --------------------------------
Date                                     Clement B. Knapp, Jr.
EXHIBIT 32.2
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   Ran Daniel, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Suspect Detection Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), 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/A of the Registrant for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 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/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  
 Date: February 3, 2011
By: /s/ Ran DanielName: Ran Daniel

Title: Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:09-cr-20264-SJM-PJK ECF No. 43-6, PageID.176 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:09-cr-20264-SJM-PJK ECF No. 43-6, PageID.177 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,784
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,374,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 18,458,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,644,369
<PP&E>                                      42,118,334
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,967,934)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,781,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,669,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,908
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,763,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                72,781,258
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           114,031,960
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              107,519,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               190,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,485,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,836,810
<INCOME-TAX>                                   115,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,721,810
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,721,810
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 479 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 479

  To repeal the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101-549).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

  Mr. DeLay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101-549).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990.

    Public Law 101-549 is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```