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

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of
China Cable and Communication, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June
30, 2004, Raymond Ying-Wai Kwan, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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 the undersigned  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.



Date:  August 19, 2004                      /s/  Raymond Ying-Wai Kwan
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Raymond Ying-Wai Kwan
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### Geo. & Chris. Pfeuffer v. Geo. W. Wilderman et al.

(No. 1984, Op. Book No. 2, p. 464.)

Appeal from Bexar County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1169. *Promissory note; suit*upon, *when note is not due, may he maintained when, etc.*Suit was instituted upon a promissory note not due. The note was accompanied by a mortgage on personal property to secure its payment. The mortgage was conditioned that upon the happening of certain events the note should become due at once. These events had happened at the time of the institution of the suit. *Held,*that the suit was not prematurely brought, but that by the terms of the mortgage, which was a part of the contract, the note had matured at the institution of the suit. *'*

§ 1170. *Assignment of errors.*An assignment of errors, to be considered, must be in accordance with rules 21, 25 and 26 of the supreme court. It must be a succinct and clear statement considering the matter referred to, and not made up of general statements, arguments and inferences. [Pearson v. Flannagan, 52 Tex. 266.]

§ 1171. *Charge of the court; judge not hound to correct charges ashed.*The court is never required to select and choose from a long string of requested charges those he may think ought, perhaps, to be given. It is enough if he instruct them as to the law of the case concisely and plainly so far as applicable to the facts. '

§ 1172. *Verdict; must he responsive to the issues; judgment in case of foreclosure of lien on chattels.*The contest was who had the superior lien upon the mortgaged *670property, the appellants or the appellees. This was the issue submitted by the judge to the jury. The verdict was: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and give him all the property included in the mortgage.” *Held,*this verdict is not responsive to any issue submitted by the judge. Upon this verdict the court entered judgment against appellants for the amount of the note sued upon. Appellants were not parties to the note, but were merely claimants of the mortgaged property in controversy. *Held,*there was nothing to support the judgment for money against appellants. The value of the mortgaged property was not found. ' For aught that appears appellee could have full satisfaction of his debt by the foreclosure of his mortgage upon the property. The statute provides what the judgment shall be in the foreclosure of chattel mortgages. [R. S. 1340.]

November 2, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
#### P. H. Cross & Co. v. Huffaker & Harris.

(No. 1289, Op. Book No. 3, p. 489.)

Error from Lamar County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 136. *Judgment by default; suggestion of delay.*Judgment by default and writ of error prosecuted. De*54fendant in error suggested delay. *Held,*1. Suggestion of delay necessitates a reversal of the judgment for any substantial error committed in the court below in the proceedings and trial of the cause. 2. The petition in this case is insufficient, because it shows upon its face that suit was brought before the maturity of the debt, and, therefore, plaintiff’s cause of action had not accrued. 3. The judgment is erroneous, because the suit was upon an account, and no evidence was adduced to prove the cause of action. 4. The suit was upon an unliquidated demand, and the damages were assessed by the clerk, and not by a jury, as was requisite at the time of the trial. [Pas. Dig. art. 1508.] 5. The suit was upon an unliquidated demand, and by its recitals the judgment shows that it was rendered upon a “cause of action liquidated and proven by an instrument in writing, ” and no such instrument is declared upon in the petition.

January 29, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Russell & Co. v. J. H. & G. Walker.

(No. 1199, Op. Book No. 2, p. 35.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

May 6, 1880.

Opinion by

Walker, A. S., J.

§ 889. *Damages; measure of.*In breach of warranty of personal property the ordinary rule of damage is the difference between the value of the article as delivered and its value as the article should have been under the contract. [Wright v. Davenport, 44 Tex. 164; Stark v. Alford, 49 Tex. 275.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### R. L. James v. E. L. Proper.

(No. 1134. Op. Book No. 3, p. 439.)

Error from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§83. *Judgment by default; defective citation.*Citation served on defendant November 14, 1818, command*36ing him to answer the suit on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, 1878, a date prior to the service of the citation. Judgment by default January 9, 1879. *Held,*that the judgment by default was erroneous. [Covingtons v. Burleson, 28 Tex. 368.]

December 11, 1880.

Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6757

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAREEM JAHMAL HORTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00480-WO-1; 1:11-cv-00987-

WO-JEP)

Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Jahmal Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Michael Meinecke, 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kareem Jahmal Horton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Horton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Heidenheimer Bros. v. B. C. Franklin.

(No. 1442, Op. Book No. 2, p. 748.)

Appeal from G-alveston County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 840. *Partner; rule as to liability of an incoming.*It is well settled that an incoming partner does not, by his entry into the firm *per se,*become liable for the existing debts of the firm. Pie becomes a member'of the firm for the future, and is bound for its future liabilities, but incurs no liability for what had transpired before he entered the firm. [2 Coll. Part. § 511 et seq.] It is also equally well settled, that if the incoming partner agree with the firm to pay the existing liabilities of the firm, such agreement is binding as between the parties to it, but the benefits of it do not extend to a creditor. As *482regards creditors who are not parties to such agreement, it is *res inter alios acta,*and does not confer upon them any right to fix the old debt upon the new partner. In order to render an incoming partner liable to the creditors of the old firm, there must be some agreement to that effect entered into between him and the creditors, and founded on some sufficient consideration. If there' be any such agreement, the incoming partner will be bound by it, but his liabilities in respect of the old debts will attach by virtue of the agreement, and not by reason of his having become a partner. [2 Coll, on Part. § 525.]

March 3, 1883.

Affirmed.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Air Force conducts successful hypersonic weapon test 

              - Published  May 16, 2022
              - Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

**EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS)  --  **

A U.S. Air Force **B-52H Stratofortress** successfully released an AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, off the Southern California coast, May 14.   

Following separation from the aircraft, the ARRW’s booster ignited and burned for expected duration, achieving hypersonic speeds five times greater than the speed of sound. 

“This was a major accomplishment by the ARRW team, for the weapons enterprise, and our Air Force,” said **Brig. Gen. Heath Collins**, Air Force Program Executive Officer for Weapons. “The team's tenacity, expertise, and commitment were key in overcoming the past year's challenges to get us to the recent success. We are ready to build on what we've learned and continue moving hypersonics forward.”  

The 419th Flight Test Squadron and the Global Power Bomber Combined Test Force, or GPB CTF, both at **Edwards Air Force Base**, California, executed the test. 

"The test team made sure we executed this test flawlessly," said Lt. Col. Michael Jungquist, 419th FLTS commander and GPB CTF director. "Our highly-skilled team made history on this first air-launched hypersonic weapon. We're doing everything we can to get this game-changing weapon to the warfighter as soon as possible." 

ARRW is designed to enable the U.S. to hold fixed, high-value, time-sensitive targets at risk in contested environments from stand-off distances. It will also expand precision-strike capabilities by enabling rapid response strikes against heavily defended land targets. 

FSUSAFAFAir ForceB-52H StratofortressEdwards Air Force Basehypersonic weapon testAGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response WeaponAircraft
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN SAMARCO.

September 17, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2014(the “Report”) of VII
Peaks Co-Optivist Income BDC II, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Michelle Kleier, the Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge, that:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated this 5th day of March,
    2015 | By: | /s/ Michelle Kleier                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                      |     | Michelle Kleier                                                                                                                
|                                      |     | Chief Financial Officer,
        Treasurer and Secretary
        (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 95 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2007 

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the career and research accomplishments of 

Frances E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M. Turing 

Award. 

Whereas Frances Allen joined IBM in 1957 early in the history of the computer industry and just after an IBM 

team developed Fortran, one of the first high-level programming languages; 

Whereas Frances Allen during her 45 year career at IBM 

rose from being a teacher of Fortran to highest level of 

IBM technologists; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

HCON 95 RFS 

Whereas in 1989 Frances Allen was the first woman to be 

named an IBM Fellow and in 1995 became President of 

the IBM Academy of Technology, a global organization 

of IBM technical leaders charged with providing technical 

advice to the company; 

Whereas Frances Allen made fundamental contributions to 

the theory and practice of program optimization, which 

translates the users’ problem-solving language statements; 

Whereas Frances Allen’s work led to remarkable advances in 

compiler design and machine architecture that are at the 

foundation of modern high-performance computing; 

Whereas Frances Allen’s unique dedication to meeting the 

needs of her customers led to IBM’s innovation model; 

Whereas Frances Allen is nationally renowned for her work 

in encouraging women to study computer science; 

Whereas the Association for Computing Machinery, an international organization of computing professionals, gives 

the A.M. Turing Award annually to individuals whose 

contributions in the field of computing are long-lasting 

and are of major technical importance; and 

Whereas Frances Allen has now been honored as the first 

woman recipient of the Turing Award, computer science’s 

most prestigious award, which is equated by some to the 

Nobel Prizes: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress honors the pioneering life 

3 work of Frances Allen in computer research and develop4 ment and salutes the Turing Award Committee for recog5 nizing, through the selection of Frances Allen, that creVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:07 May 03, 2007 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC95.RFS HC95

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

HCON 95 RFS 

1 ative women have contributed mightily to the development 

2 of this important field. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 1, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, Michael C. Forman, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report
on Form 10-K of FS Investment Corporation II; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 27, 2018



|/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN  
|-----------------------
|Michael C. Forman      
|Chief Executive Officer
<Page>

                                                                          [LOGO]

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration
Statement No. 333-43886 of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D
on Form N-4, of our report dated February 28, 2003 of Fortis Benefits Insurance
Company Variable Account D relating to the financial statements as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in the Statement of Additional
Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the
reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Statement of Additional
Information.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
December 4, 2003
#### THE STATE v. BOEHM, Appellant.

(No. 3.)

Division Two,

November 22, 1904.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit' *Court.*— Hon. *O’Neill By an,*Judge.

Affirmed.

FOX, J.

The record in this case is substantially the same as in State v. Boehm, 184 Mo. 201, decided at the present term of this court. Adopting the views expressed in that case, as well as the conclusions reached, result in the affirmance of the judgment in this cause, and it is so ordered.

*Gantt, P. J.,*concurs; *Burgess, J.,*absent.
KINGS ROAD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kings Road Entertainment, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2004 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geraldine Blecker, Chief Executive Officer, and I, H. Martin DeFrank, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as adopted pursuant
to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed from within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kings Road
Entertainment, Inc., and will be retained by Kings Road Entertainment, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: October 31, 2005                    /s/ Geraldine Blecker
                                           _________________________________
                                           By:  Geraldine Blecker
                                           Its: Chief Executive Officer



Dated: October 31, 2005                    /s/ H. Martin DeFrank
                                           _________________________________
                                           By:   H. Martin DeFrank
                                           Its:  Chief Financial Officer
#### First National Bank of Denison v. G. G. Randall.

(No. 1078, Op. Book No. 2, p. 171.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Walker, A. S., J.

§ 971. *Drcmeeof a check; cannot inquire into drawer’s title to the fund drawn upon; liability of drawee.*If the drawee in a check has funds in his hands subject to the check, he cannot inquire into the legality of the means by which the drawer obtained the funds, and the refusal of the drawee to pay the check would render him liable for damages, for measure of which interest might be allowed. [Commercial Bank v. Jones, 18 Tex. 811.]

§ 97 2. *National bank; proof of corporate existence of.*There was evidence that appellant was exercising banking functions, with officers, etc., calling itself by the name as charged. The act of congress prescribing a mode of proviug the organization of such banks is not in derogation of any state law. On principle, the bank ought to be held to the law organizing it/ as evidence of its existence.

§ 973. *City records; irregidarity of, will not absolve from liability on contracts.*A city, by an irregular mode of keeping its records, cannot be absolved from the consequences of its acts, the obligation of its contracts, or from being responsible for the legal acts of its officers.

§ 974. *Parol evidence to explain written; rule as to.*The doctrine is well settled that parol evidence may be received to explain an ambiguity, and show what the parties really meant by the language used; but when there is no ambiguity, such testimony is wholly inadmissible. [Franklin v. Mooney, 2 Tex. 452.] Ambiguous expressions as to extrinsic or other objects may be explained by parol proof; but when the meaning of the ambiguous terms is thus supplied, the court must judge of the whole document in subordination to its legal sense as thus completed. The contract cannot be varied; its *546obscure expressions may be explained, but this not for the purpose of moulding, but of developing, the true sense. [Whart. Ev. §§ 946, 1015;- 1 Greenl. Ev. 288.]" And this rule applies as well to a record, when silent or ambiguous, as to other written instruments. [Whart. Ev. § 986.] Thus, in this case, the judgment was reversed because the court below rejected material evidence-which was offered by the defendant to explain an ambiguity in the records of the commissioners’ court having direct reference to the debt sued upon.

June 23, 1880.

§ 97 5. *Consideration; funds deposited in banlc.*The-deposit of funds in a bank forms sufficient consideration to authorize the holder of a check drawmagainst such funds by the depositor to maintain a suit against such bank on its refusal to pay. [Daniel on Neg. Inst. § 1640.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### James E. Barclay v. Robert Scott.

(No. 689, Op. Book No. 3, p. 465.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 110. *Petition; sufficiency of.*S. sued out an attachment against the property of W., which was levied by the sheriff, B. The property was replevied by W. upon a replevy bond which had but one surety. S. sued B., the sheriff, alleging the proceedings by- attachment, the levy *45upon the property, and the release of it by the sheriff upon a void bond, the loss of his lien upon the property, and that it had been removed by W. beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and that W. was insolvent, whereby plaintiff had lost his debt. Upon demurrer it was held that these facts, if true, entitled S. to recover from the sheriff such damages as he may have sustained by reason of the alleged default of the sheriff.

January 26, 1881.

§ 111. *Damages; measure of, in suit against sheriff for taking insufficient replevy bond.*In a suit against a sheriff for taking an insufficient replevy bond for property which has been attached, whereby the plaintiff has been damaged, the measure of damage is the loss sustained by the plaintiff, resulting directly and immediately from the default of the sheriff,— such damage, however, not to exceed the value of the property attached and released, nor the amount of the plaintiff’s judgment against the defendant in attachment.

Affirmed.