alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2018 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2018-3, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on July 25, 2018 and ending onFebruary 28, 2019and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 23rd day of May, 2019 .





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Enrique Mayor-Mora


Enrique Mayor-Mora


Vice President and Treasurer
#### Vacchiano *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 24423

Decided December 20, 1933.)

*Mr. Dan U. McCullough, Mr. Eugene Howard*and *Mr. Walter Connors,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Frasier Reams,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Joel*
      *504
      *8. Bhinefort*and *Mr. Arnold F. Bunge,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby,’dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

s hould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 95-10533

_______________________ In The Matter of: WILLIAM HAROLD COLLUM, doing business as Harold Collum Co.; MATTIE MERELYNE COLLUM, Debtors. WILLIAM HAROLD COLLUM; MATTIE MERELYNE COLLUM, Appellants,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (IRS), Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:91-CV-1247-P)

_________________________________________________________________ April 12, 1996 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The court has considered carefully the taxpayers’ contention that no taxable disposition of their property to
Interwest occurred in 198 7. Taking all the facts into consideration, particularly the two-year duration of the transfer to Interwest and the company’s assumption of the debtors’ primary2

liability to the savings and loan associations, we cannot conclude that the bankruptcy or district courts erred in deciding that a taxable transfer occurred. There is no persuasive basis for holding that under Texas law Interwest held the property in constructive trust for the debtors. Further, this is not a case in which the taxable form of a transaction ought to give way to its substance -- the substance of a taxable disposition existed here.

For essentially the reasons artic ulated by them, the judgments of the district and bankruptcy courts are AFFIRMED
.
EXHIBIT 99.1





I, George S. Wiedemann, President and Chief Executive Officer of iDine Rewards Network Inc., certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





(1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and





(2)
    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of iDine Rewards Network Inc.





Dated:  November 14, 2002








/S/ GEORGE S.
WIEDEMANNGeorge S. WiedemannPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-178075 on Form S-8 of our report dated June 19, 2018, relating to the financial statements and supplemental schedule of the Cincinnati Financial Corporation Tax-Qualified Savings Plan, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 11-K of the Cincinnati Financial Corporation Tax-Qualified Savings Plan for the year ended December 31, 2017.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Cincinnati, Ohio


June 19, 2018
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                SUMMARY OF ARRANGEMENT EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2005,
                  BETWEEN DOVER CORPORATION AND THOMAS L. REECE

      Thomas L. Reece, who retired from his position as Chief Executive Officer
of Dover Corporation (the "Company") effective December 31, 2004, remains the
Chairman of the Board and will serve as a director of each of the Company's six
segment subsidiaries for the year 2005, and will provide substantial
consultation and advice throughout the year. For such services, Mr. Reece will
receive for 2005 the same base salary ($1,000,000) that he received in 2004. Mr.
Reece will also be provided continued health insurance coverage at no cost to
him for the next three years until he reaches age 65, but will receive
substantially no other compensation or perquisites. For the year 2005, Mr. Reece
will not receive the directors' compensation received by other non-management
directors of the Company.

      This arrangement was approved by the Board of Directors on November 4,
2004 and February 10, 2005, upon the recommendation of the Compensation
Committee.
#### The State, ex rel. Lanker, *v.*Kelsey.

(No. 24315

Decided January 10, 1934.)

*Mr. O. V. Anderson,*for relator.

*Mr. J. E. Helmam>,*for respondent.

This cause came on to be heard upon the motion by respondent for judgment on the pleadings. On consideration whereof it is hereby ordered and adjudged that said motion be, and the same hereby is, sustained for the reasons set forth by the court in overruling the demurrer to the second defense of the answer. *(State, ex rel. Lanker,*v. *Kelsey, ante,*332.)

*Judgment for respondent.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1,715
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    7,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,205
<PP&E>                                         5,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 48,747  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,311  
<BONDS>                                        0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0      
<PREFERRED>                                    0       
<COMMON>                                       22       
<OTHER-SE>                                     (22,102)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   48,747  
<SALES>                                        41,476  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,476  
<CGS>                                          27,087  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  39,346  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,209   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                320     
<INCOME-TAX>                                   28      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            248     
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                3,922   
<CHANGES>                                      0       
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,170   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.90    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.90    
                                               


</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00263-CR

IN RE: MICHAEL DOWDEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In Cass County, Texas, Michael Dowden was convicted on two charges of delivery of a 

controlled substance, specifically two different types of narcotic painkillers, and sentenced to 

sixty-five years’ and two years’ confinement, respectively, with the sentences to run 

concurrently. Dowden filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which, as best we can discern, he 

seeks to have this Court order DNA and fingerprint testing of “the evidence they have against 

[him],” presumably the narcotic pills themselves. 

We may grant a petition for writ of mandamus when the relator shows there is no 

adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that the act to be compelled is purely 

ministerial. Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. 

proceeding) (citing Winters v. Presiding Judge of Criminal Dist. Court No. Three, 118 S.W.3d 

773, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). 

Here, Dowden has failed to provide this Court with any record in support of his petition. 

It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to 

mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re 

Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. 

proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Further, the trial court is not required to consider a motion 

unless it is called to the court’s attention. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). Dowden’s petition is not accompanied by any proof he 

brought this matter before the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1). Dowden’s petition 
3

does not include an appendix or any other attempt to provide a record for our review. Without 

some record of this type, we are unable to grant the extraordinary relief he has requested.

For the reasons stated, Dowden’s petition is denied.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: December 31, 2013

Date Decided: January 2, 2014

Do Not Publish
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 4538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KENDRICK OMAR COBB , Defendant

- Appellant

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

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:18

- cr - 00683

- HMH

- 1 )

Submitted : March 31, 2023 D ecided: May 11, 2023

Before HARRIS and RUSHING , Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF : David A. Brown, Sr., DABROWNLAW, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs , United States Attorney , Leesa Washington , Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Kendrick Omar Cobb appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted fe lon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, Cobb argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation in which he had counsel but was not informed of his right to counsel pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Pulley , 987 F.3d 3 70, 376 (4th Cir. 2021). We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and “must also give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We “particularly defer to a district court’s credibility determinations” and will only “reverse a lower court’s finding of fact” if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitt ed). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err by denying Cobb’s motion to suppress because Cobb’s retained counsel was present for the duration of the interrogation. See Miranda , 384 U.S. at 466 (“The presence of

counse l[]

. . . would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self

- incrimination].”); Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 485

- 86 (1981) (“The Fifth Amendment right id entified
in Miranda is the right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation.”). USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mater ials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/11/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
IA

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 106

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting

real and virtual child pornography.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 17, 2002

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.

CHAMBLISS, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GRAHAM,

Mr. HALL of Texas, Ms. HART, Mr. HAYES, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. JONES

of North Carolina, Mr. KERNS, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. MCHUGH, Mrs.

MYRICK, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PICKERING, Mr.

PITTS, Mr. RILEY, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. SMITH of Michigan,

Mr. SOUDER, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr.

TIAHRT, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States respecting real and virtual child pornography.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 106 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. Neither the Constitution nor any State

6 constitution shall be construed to protect child pornog7 raphy, defined as visual depictions by any technological

8 means of minor persons, whether actual or virtual, en9 gaged in explicit sexual activity.

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to

11 enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.C., a child, * From the 326th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 10469-CX.

No. 11-23-00056-CV * September 21, 2023

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                     FORM 15

   Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration under 12(g) of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty to File Reports Under
          Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        Commission File Number 333-43167

                       CITICORP MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
           (Issuer in respect of the REMIC Pass-Through Certificates)
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                          909 Third Avenue, 30th Floor
                            New York, New York 10043
                                 (212) 559-6727
   (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
                    registrant's principal executive offices)

                 REMIC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1998-7
            (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

                                 Not Applicable
   (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
                      under Section 13(a) or 15(d)remains)

         Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

         Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)       [ ]             Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)      [ ]
         Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii)      [ ]             Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)       [ ]
         Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)       [ ]             Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)      [ ]
         Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii)      [ ]             Rule 15d-6                [x]
         Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)       [ ]

Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or
notice date:  48



      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. has caused this certification/notice to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.


Dated as of: January 26, 1999                     BY:      /s/ Carol Koch
                                                           --------------
                                                           Carol Koch
                                                           Assistant Secretary

      Instruction: This form is required by Rules 12g-4, 12h-3 and 15d-6 of the
General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
registrant shall file with the Commission three copies of Form 15, one of which
shall be manually signed. It may be signed by an officer of the registrant, by
counsel or by any other duly authorized person. The name and title of the person
signing the form shall be typed or printed under the signature.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 my knowledge:


(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.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)         May 15, 2009

<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
 and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities
 and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.