alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THOMAS CONNELL *v.*ENOS C. FISK, Jr.

*Exemption from Attachment.*

1. A colt, not exempt under the statute as being kept for team work, is not exempt because it was received in exchange for a horse that was exempt.

2. If one claims property to be exempt, he must show affirmatively all the facts necessary to bring his property within the statute of exemptions.

Heard by the court, March Term, 1881, Veazey, J., presiding. Trover for the conversion of a colt, two years old. Judgment, for the defendent. The defendant was a sheriff, and took the colt on an execution against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had exchanged a horse that was exempt for the colt in question. The questions raised in the court below are stated in the opinion.

*J. E.*Manley, for the plaintiff,

cited 53 Yt. 302 ; 45 Yt. 40 ; 29 Yt. 289 ; 40 Yt. 641; R. L. s. 1076.

*Joel 0.*Baker, for the defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Rowell, J.

The fact that the colt in question was acquired by exchanging therefor a horse that was exempt from attachment, does not exempt it. The statute that provides that no person shall be liable or chargeable on trustee process on account of a sum due or owing to the principal debtor for property sold and conveyed or delivered by him that was at the time of such sale exempt from attachment and execution,'is not operative to this extent.

The colt was not broken at the time it was taken on execution, although the plaintiff had commenced to handle it some, with a view to breaking. It had never been kept and used for team work ; and the case does not disclose that plaintiff had any intent or purpose of keeping and using it for such work, nor that he selected it for exemption. The burden was on the plaintiff to show affirmatively all the facts necessary to bring his property within the statute of exemption. This he has failed to do.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 11-9706.

#### Smith *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### § 0.347 Record of actions taken.

The record of actions taken by a presiding officer, including initial and recommended decisions and actions taken pursuant to § 0.341, is available through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). ECFS serves as the repository for records in the Commission's docketed proceedings from 1992 to the present. The public may use ECFS to retrieve all such records, as well as selected pre-1992 documents. The Office of the Secretary maintains copies of documents that include nonpublic information.

[85 FR 63171, Oct. 6, 2020]
Exhibit 32(b)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004



The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of
Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Issuer for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004.



I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 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 that information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



This certification is executed as of February 23, 2005.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael R. Sayre   
|Chief Financial Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4369

To remove the restrictions on the export of Alaskan North Slope oil, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 9, 1994

Mr. THOMAS of California (for himself, Mr. DOOLEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and

Mr. MCCRERY) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Energy and Commerce, Natural

Resources, and Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To remove the restrictions on the export of Alaskan North

Slope oil, 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. EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

4 Section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act of

5 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406(d)) is repealed.

6 SEC. 2. TRANSPORT REQUIREMENT.

7 Any domestically produced crude oil that is trans8 ported by pipeline over right-of-way granted pursuant to

9 section 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization
2

•HR 4369 IH

1 Act (43 U.S.C. 1652) shall, if exported, be transported

2 in vessels eligible to engage in the coastwise trade that

3 are documented under the laws of the United States.

4 SEC. 3. OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.

5 The export of domestically produced crude oil trans6 ported by pipeline over right-of-way granted pursuant to

7 section 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization

8 Act (43 U.S.C. 1652) shall not be subject to the restric9 tions contained in section 28(u) of the Mineral Leasing

10 Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 185(u)), section 103 of the Energy

11 Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6212), section 28

12 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.

13 1354), or section 7430(e) of title 10, United States Code,

14 or any regulations issued under any such provision of law.

Æ
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

01 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

02 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 04 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 06 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

03 28 29 30 31 05 25 26 27 28 29 07 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1

08 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

09 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

14 30

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16 28 29 30 31 18 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 23 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 26 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 24 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 29 30 31

HOLIDAY BIWEEKLY PAY DAY

APRIL MAY JUNE

UNITED STATES COURTS BIWEEKLY PAY CALENDAR

2024

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE0 4360A151
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Robert Vrij, as Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, 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 his knowledge,
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  |                        
| |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
| |  |                  |  | 
| |  |                  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert Vrij        
| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Robert Vrij            
| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | President and          
| |  | November 8, 2007 |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jean-Yves Dexmier, as Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, 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 his knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  |                        
| |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
| |  |                  |  | 
| |  |                  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Jean-Yves Dexmier  
| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Jean-Yves Dexmier      
| |  | November 8, 2007 |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
# Comments on: 2022-1757: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 10A
                                                                     -----------

                                 Amendment No. 1

                                     to the

                       AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.
                         1997 OFFICERS STOCK OPTION PLAN



                  WHEREAS, American Precision Industries Inc. (the "Company")
adopted the American Precision Industries Inc. 1997 Officers Stock Option Plan
(the "Plan") effective April 25, 1997, and

                  WHEREAS, Section 8.3 of the Plan authorizes the Board of
Directors of the Company (the "Board") to amend the Plan in its discretion,
except to the extent approval of the Company's shareholders would be required by
law, and

                  WHEREAS, on July 24, 1998, the Board approved and authorized
the amendment to the Plan set out below,

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

                  1. A new Section 8.3A is added to the Plan to read as follows:

                                    8.3A RESTRICTIONS ON AMENDMENTS AND GRANTS.
                         Notwithstanding any contradictory provisions of the
                         Plan, and except as provided in Section 7.1 or as
                         approved by the Company's shareholders, an Option may
                         not be amended to reduce the exercise price or
                         cancelled and replaced with another Option having a
                         lower exercise price.

                  2. This amendment is effective July 24, 1998.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this document is executed this 27th day of
October, 1998, pursuant to the authorization of the Board of Directors.


                                   AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.


                                   By /s/ James R. Schwinger
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Vice President - Human Resources



                                       21
§ 302-9.500 When am I eligible for temporary storage of a POV? You may be eligible for temporary storage of your POV when: ( a ) You are assigned a TCS in support of a contingency operation (humanitarian operations, peacekeeping operations, and similar operations) as defined in 10 U.S.C. 1482a(c)(2);
( b ) You are eligible for expenses as authorized in part 302-3, subpart E; and
( c ) The head of your agency determines it would be more advantageous, cost and other factors considered, to authorize a temporary storage of a POV.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.8 Withdrawal of papers.

The granting of a request to dismiss or withdraw an application or a pleading does not authorize the removal of such application or pleading from the Commission's records.
#### SABRA FAIRES, BENNETT LITTLE COTTEN, and DIANE P. LAHTI v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; A. GRANT WHITNEY, JR., Chair, and RHONDA K. AMOROSO, JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, MAJA KRICKER, and JAMES L. BAKER, members of the State Board, in their official capacities only; and KIM WESTBROOK STRACH, Executive Director of the State Board, in her official capacity only

No. 84A16

Filed 6 May 2016

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(al) from a judgment entered on 4 March 2016 by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court, Wake County, appointed by the Chief Justice under N.C.G.S. § 1-267.1. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13 April 2016.

*Tharrington Smith, LLP, by Michael Crowell, Deborah Stagner, Stephen Rawson, and Neal Ramee, for plaintiff-appellees.*

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General; Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General; Alexander McC. Peters, Senior Deputy Attorney General; and Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-appellants.*

*Graebe, Hanna & Sullivan PLLC, by Mark R. Sigmon; American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, by Christopher Brook and Jenifer Wolfe; and Civitas Institute, Center for Law and Freedom, by Elliot Engstrom, for American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation and Civitas Institute, Center for Law and Freedom, amici curiae.*

*John V. Orth, pro se, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

Justice EDMUNDS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the judgment of the three-judge panel of the Superior Court, Wake County. Accordingly, the judgment of the three-judge panel of the Superior Court, Wake County is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See, e.g., State v. Long,*365 N.C. 5, 705 S.E.2d 735 (2011) (per curiam); *State v. Greene,*298 N.C. 268, 258 S.E.2d 71 (1979) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16841]



[[Page 41452]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2566-001


New England Power Company, Massachusetts Electric Company and The 
Narragansett Electric Company; Notice of Filing

June 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 27, 2000, New England Power Company, 
Massachusetts Electric Company and The Narragansett Electric Company 
submit for filing an amendment to their May 19, 2000 filing in this 
docket. The amendment consists of a revised Attachment E to the May 19 
filing deleting a reference to Eastern Edison Company, Rate Schedule 
No. 58 in the Notice of Succession for Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before July 10, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
222 for asssistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16841 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| Exhibit      31.1 | Rule      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)Certification |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------|

| 1.  | I      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of North Central      Bancshares, Inc.; |
|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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:  March      24, 2010 | /s/ David M.      Bradley                                      David M. BradleyPresident and Chief Executive    Officer  |   |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

----
#### Graig RIPLEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-36144.

D.C. No. CV-02-05104-FDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 4, 2004.

Decided March 16, 2004.

Elie Halpern, Elie Halpern *&*Associates, PS, Olympia, WA, Eric Schnaufer, Attorney at Law, Evanston, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kristin B. Johnson, Stephanie Martz, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Brian C. Kipnis, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendank-Appellee.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Craig Ripley appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Ripley is able to work as a semi-conductor bonder, a job existing in *257significant numbers in the national and regional economy. *See Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,*44 F.3d 1453, 1464-65 (9th Cir.1995); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(b).

Taken as a whole, the record establishes that the ALJ found that Ripley could work an eight-hour day. *See Tackett v. Apfel,*180 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir.1999). The record also establishes, consistent with Social Security Rulings 96-8P and 96-9P, that the ALJ and vocational expert understood the ALJ’s hypothetical to mean work in an eight-hour day. Any error in stating Ripley’s cognitive limitation was harmless because his limitations were adequately accounted for in the job recommended by the vocational expert.

The ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Harris’s opinion as to Ripley’s inability to work was supported by adequate findings and by substantial evidence of the opinion of other experts, including treating physicians. *See Tonapetyan v. Halter,*242 F.3d 1144, 1148-49 (9th Cir.2001); *Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*169 F.3d 595, 600-01 (9th Cir.1999); *Matthews v. Shala-la,*10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir.1993).

Finally, we decline to consider Ripley’s argument that the ALJ erred by failing to note to the vocational expert that a claimant who cannot stoop, and who is restricted to sedentary, unskilled work, is “usually” disabled, as the argument was not raised in the district court and no exceptional circumstances indicate that we should. *See Copeland v. Bowen,*861 F.2d 536, 540 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-9647.

#### Carel *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 1) 

March 2023

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST

Case Number

Short Case Caption

Filing Party/Entity

Instructions:

1. Complete each section of the form and select none or N/A if appropriate.

2. Please enter only one item per box; attach additional pages as needed, and

check the box to indicate such pages are attached.

3. In answering Sections 2 and 3, be specific as to which represented entities

the answers apply; lack of specificity may result in non-compliance.

4. Please do not duplicate entries within Section 5.

5. Counsel must file an amended Certificate of Interest within seven days after

any information on this form changes. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(c).

I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and 

complete to the best of my knowledge.

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name: 
FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 2) 

March 2023

1. Represented

Entities.

Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).

2. Real Party in

Interest.

Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).

3. Parent Corporations

and Stockholders.

Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).

Provide the full names of 

all entities represented by 

undersigned counsel in 

this case. 

Provide the full names of 

all real parties in interest 

for the entities. Do not list 

the real parties if they are 

the same as the entities. 

Provide the full names of 

all parent corporations for 

the entities and all 

publicly held companies 

that own 10% or more 

stock in the entities. 

☐ None/Not Applicable ☐ None/Not Applicable

☐ Additional pages attached
FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 3) 

March 2023

4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)

appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to

appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already entered

an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).

☐ None/Not Applicable ☐ Additional pages attached

5. Related Cases. Other than the originating case(s) for this case, are there

related or prior cases that meet the criteria under Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(a)?

☐ Yes (file separate notice; see below) ☐ No ☐ N/A (amicus/movant)

If yes, concurrently file a separate Notice of Related Case Information that complies 

with Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). Please do not duplicate information. This separate 

Notice must only be filed with the first Certificate of Interest or, subsequently, if 

information changes during the pendency of the appeal. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b).

6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information

required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)

and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).

☐ None/Not Applicable ☐ Additional pages attached
404P13-2

#### Robert A. Izydore v. City of Durham (Durham Board of Adjustment)

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1378)

Denied