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



Certification of Chief Executive 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, Gurpreet
S. Chandhoke, the Chief Executive Officer and President, 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/ Gurpreet S. Chandhoke                                                                                              
|------------------------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                      |     | Gurpreet S. Chandhoke                                                                                                  
|                                      |     | Chairman of the Board of Directors,
        Chief Executive Officer and President
        (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    RETIREMENT OF GERALD A. HACKETT

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk relating to 
the retirement of Gerald Hackett and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 123) relating to the retirement of 
     Gerald A. Hackett.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
  The resolution (S. Res. 123) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:
                              S. Res. 123

       Whereas Gerald A. Hackett will retire from the United 
     States Senate after 33 years of service, the last 29 years as 
     Executive Clerk;
       Whereas his dedication to the United States resulted in the 
     computerization of the nomination and treaty processes,and 
     the on-line publishing of the Executive Journal;
       Whereas he has performed the duties of his office with 
     remarkable diligence, perseverance, efficiency, and 
     intelligence;
       Whereas he has faithfully performed his duties serving all 
     Members of the Senate with great professional integrity and 
     dedication; and
       Whereas Gerald A. Hackett has earned the respect, 
     admiration and esteem of the United States Senate: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the United States Senate commends Gerald A. 
     Hackett for his long, faithful, and exemplary service to his 
     country and to the Senate.
       Sec. 2. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of this 
     resolution to Gerald A. Hackett.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
resolution was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF G. F. AND S. P. H.

April 18, 1978.

.'Petition fór certification denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section 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.
  Date: December 12, 2007
    /s/ Andrew F. PuzderAndrew F. PuzderPresident and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             MILLIONS OF NEEDY AMERICANS DEPEND ON MEDICARE

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is Tom McDonough. Tom McDonough is not 
interested in liberal or conservative. Tom McDonough is interested in 
the problems he has as a family member. Tom McDonough is 66 years of 
age. Tom McDonough's heart is failing, Tom McDonough lives in Bowie, 
MD, in my district and he gets $800 on Social Security.
  And the Republicans' budget wants to say to Tom McDonough, we are not 
going to help you pay for the medical care you need. We promised it as 
a Nation. We made a promise, and we talk about promises kept, but this 
is a promise broken.
  Social Security is going to be cut in 5 years, in 4 years, and in 3 
years for Tom McDonough. He does not think that is a promise made and a 
promise kept.
  His Medicare is going to be cut back. Tom McDonough does not think 
that is a promise made or a promise kept.

                          ____________________
```
#### J. S. Newbauer & Bro. v. E. Joseph.

(No. 1223, Op. Book No. 3, p. 444.)

Appeal from Washington County.

February 2, 1881.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 86. *Appeal bond.*An appeal bond which was made payable to J. S. N. and E. N., without naming them appellees, when the appellees in the suit were J. S. N. & Bro., and there is nothing in the record to show that the firm was composed of J. S. N. and E. N., was held to be fatally defective, and did not give the appellate court jurisdiction of the case, and that it was not permissible to cure the defect by filing a new bond. [King v. Hopkins, 42 Tex. 48.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### Britton & Mayson v. P. H. Thrash.

(No. 1479, Op. Book No. 2, p. 567.)

Appeal from Hood County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1237. *JReconvention; derivation and nature of.*The remedy by plea in reconvention is derived from the civil law, and our statute does not give, but simply regulates, the remedy. To entitle a party to reconvene, his demand need not be liquidated; it is sufficient if it arises out of, or is incident to or connected with, the cause of action sued upon. [R. S. 650; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex 406; *712Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501; Phillips v. Patillo, 18 Tex. 518.]

October 3, 1881.

§ 1238. *Character; evidence*of, *admissible when.*The-general rule in civil suits is that evidence to prove the general character of a party to a suit is not admissible. Where, however, the nature of the action involves the* general character of a party, or goes directly to affect it, such evidence is admissible. [1 Greenl. Ev. § 54.] The nature of the action and the issues involved determine the admissibility of this class of evidence.

§ 1239. *Argument of counsel; discretion of court.*As to what shall or shall not be read in argument is left to the discretion of the court below, and this discretion will not be revised unless a palpable abuse of it is made-to appear.

Affirmed.

Note.— Quinan, J., did not concur in the conclusion of the court that, the evidence sustained the judgment. He was of the opinion that the judgment was not supported by the evidence, but he concurred in the-conclusions of law above stated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM IVAX
CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          29,456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  291,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,112
<INVENTORY>                                    239,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               606,573
<PP&E>                                         513,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                 149,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,242,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,479
<BONDS>                                        289,974
<COMMON>                                        11,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     722,844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,242,933
<SALES>                                        897,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               897,976
<CGS>                                          521,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  521,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,720
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,944
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     34
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
(logo) CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as toCompliance**

**For the Period of January 1,2016 to December 31, 2016**

 

**DBUBS 2011-LC3**

 

 

In accordance with Item 1123of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §10.11 of thePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital AssetManagement LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, isproviding this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A) a review of CWCAM’sactivities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the“Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B) that, to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

 

Sincerely, 

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
#### J. W. Withee v. J. F. Brown et als.

(No. 547, Op. Book No. 2, p. 632.)

Error from Titus County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 544. *Injunction to restrain the sale of exempt property.*The petition for injunction certainly alleged valid equitable grounds for relief when it set forth the articles *274of property levied upon, and which were about to be sold under execution, and averred that the same were exempt from forced sale under the constitution and laws; and the court erred in dissolving the injunction for want of equity in the bill. Whether the property mentioned was exempt was a matter of law and fact, to be determined after hearing the evidence [Dearborn v. Phillips, 21 Tex. 449], especially where there was no sworn answer of defendant, pretending to traverse the facts alleged.

December 11, 1880.

§ 545. *Right of a man to claim property acquired during marriage as exempt after dissolution of the marriage.*It is admitted that appellant acquired and used the property during the time he was a married man and head of a family, and he avers that he has continued to occupy, use and enjoy it with his servants and hirelings since. In Taylor v. Boulware, 17 Tex. 74, it was held with regard to the homestead, that such a state of facts would continue the exemption. The case as made by these facts is essentially different from the cáse of Howard v. Marshall, 48 Tex. 471, because Marshall had never been a married man, and had no family such as is contemplated in the constitutional and legislative enactments' upon the subject. And it is different from Whitehead v. Nicholson, 48 Tex. 517, because Nicholson was not the' constituent of a family when he acquired the property claimed as a homestead, and the supposed family which he collected after acquisition of title to the property, the exemption was not intended to be secured to. The property here was acquired when appellant Withee was a. married man, and he used and enjoyed the property with his family; and when the marital relations were dissolved, as a constituent of the family, he still continued the use, occupancy and enjoyment of the property. We think the case comes within the rule of Taylor v. Boulware, *supra.*

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 SECAF visits RAF LakenheathPublished July 17, 2023
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Olivia Gibson
                        
                        
                        48th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **RAF LAKENHEATH, United Kingdom (AFNS) --**
                **Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall** visited **RAF Lakenheath** July 13, to meet with 48th Fighter Wing Airmen and get a better look at the mission.Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall talks with U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Joseph Campo, 48th Fighter Wing commander, at RAF Lakenheath, England, July 13, 2023. As one of the key stops during the visit, 48th MUNS showcased conventional employment concepts and demonstrated how they have maintained a ready and alert posture, which has proven successful in recent real world taskings. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Seleena Muhammad-Ali)Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall talks with U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Joseph Campo, 48th Fighter Wing commander, at RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, July 13, 2023. As one of the key stops during the visit, 48th MUNS showcased conventional employment concepts and demonstrated how they have maintained a ready and alert posture. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Seleena Muhammad-Ali)
            
            
            Photo Details /
                Download Hi-Res

    











“We’re gonna be focused on improving our posture, reoptimizing for great power competition, a long-term strategic competition, that you all are going to be part of for your entire Air Force careers,” Kendall said.
Kendall used these directives to highlight the importance of the 48th Fighter Wing’s role as the premier fighter wing in Europe and emphasized the need to continue improving our fleet.
“The thing I have been most focused on is modernization,” he said. “We can’t sit still; we have to move to the next generation of capabilities, and we have to do it as fast as we can.”
Working alongside NATO allies and partners as the only fourth and fifth generation fighter wing in U.S. Air Forces in Europe enables the 48th FW to continue delivering airpower worldwide at a moment’s notice to keep pace with U.S. adversaries.
“The importance of the Space and Air Force to our success in the future is paramount; the rest of the joint force cannot succeed if we do not succeed,” Kendall said. “Thank you for what you all do, I’m very proud to be part of the Department of the Air Force and the reason I am so proud is because of what you guys do every day.”LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



RAF Lakenheath 



USAFE-AFAFRICA 



U.S. Air Forces in Europe 



SecAF 



Secretary of the Air Force 



Frank Kendall 



power 



competition
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 
period for morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 60

 Expressing support for the goals of Veterans Educate Today's Students 
                  (VETS) Day, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2007

 Mr. Pallone submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the goals of Veterans Educate Today's Students 
                  (VETS) Day, and for other purposes.

Whereas the United States has, in the course of its history, fought in many wars 
        and conflicts to defend freedom and protect the interests of the Nation;
Whereas millions of men and women have served the Nation in time of need as 
        members of the Armed Forces;
Whereas the service of veterans has been vital to the Nation, and the sacrifices 
        made by veterans and their families should not be forgotten with the 
        passage of time;
Whereas children throughout the Nation would benefit from programs that provide 
        education about veterans and that instill a patriotic appreciation of 
        the sacrifices made by veterans to defend freedom and to protect the 
        interests of the Nation;
Whereas efforts are being made throughout the Nation to devote November 10, or 
        another date as may be designated, to an event known as Veterans Educate 
        Today's Students Day; and
Whereas schools that participate in Veterans Educate Today's Students Day set 
        aside a portion of the school day for the study, recognition, and 
        appreciation of veterans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That the Congress--
            (1) recognizes the importance of veterans to the United 
        States;
            (2) expresses support for the goals of Veterans Educate 
        Today's Students Day;
            (3) urges teachers, civic leaders, and veterans to carry 
        out programs that educate children about the service of 
        veterans and the sacrifices made by veterans and their 
        families; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to 
        participate in local and national activities recognizing 
        Veterans Educate Today's Students Day and other events that 
        foster education about the importance of veterans to the 
        Nation.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas W. Rogers, Ex’r, v. John E. Harrison, Adm’r.

(No. 33, Op. Book No. 1, p. 160.)

Error from Upshur County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 494. *Petition must show that court has jurisdiction.*Judgment by default against the executor of an estate. The petition alleged that the defendant resided in Harri*244son county. Suit was instituted in Upshur county. No allegation in the petition that the estate which defendant represented was being administered in Upshur county. *Held,*that the petition was wholly insufficient to support the judgment by default. If the estate which defendant represented was being administered in Upshur county, the suit was properly instituted in that county [Pas. Dig. 1423], but that fact should have been alleged distinctly. “A bill ought to allege the cause so distinctly as to enable the chancellor to determine if he has jurisdiction, and to decide on a proper decree.” [2 A. E. Marsh. 317.] “That the present was a judgment by default cannot alter the case or dispense with the rule which requires that the proofs shall conform to the allegations, and that the latter must be sufficient to constitute a legal basis on which to predicate a judgment. The defendants not having appeared, can be deemed to have waived nothing which was essential to the plaintiff’s right to recover.” [Hall & Jones v. Jackson, 3 Tex. 305; Holland v. Cook, 10 Tex. 244.]

§ 495. *Petition should have alleged why the claim had not been presented to the executor, etc.; judgment must be authorized by the pleading.*The claim sued upon had not been presented to the executor for acceptance, and no reason was alleged in the petition why it had not been so presented. [Pas. Dig. 5683.] The judgment ordered execution to issue, without there being any allegations in the petition showing such facts as could authorize execution. *Held,*if there was anything in the. facts and circumstances of the case which would justify a departure from the well settled rules, then the facts making it an exception to those rules should have been presented by proper affirmative averments. “ There is no rule that has been more strictly enforced in our courts, than the rule that the allegations must be broad enough to let in the pi-oof, and that no evidence, not supported by the allegations, can sustain a verdict and judgment.” [Mims v. Mitchell, 1 Tex. 443; Hall v. Jackson, 3 Tex. 309; Denison v. *245League, 16 Tex. 408; Coles v. Kelsey, 2 Tex. 541; Caldwell v. Haley, 3 Tex. 317; Paul v. Perez, 7 Tex. 345.]

November 13, 1876.

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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-Q of EDAC Technologies
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended April 2, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned officers 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: May 12, 2005                                 /s/ Dominick A. Pagano
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Dominick A. Pagano
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 12, 2005                                 /s/ Glenn L. Purple
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Glenn L. Purple
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to EDAC Technologies Corporation and will be retained by EDAC
Technologies Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request