alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Certification      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, as amended, and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Jack Rhian              |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Jack                Rhian                  |
| Chief                Executive Officer and |
| President                                  |

**A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906**
**of      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
**has      been provided to **
**and      will be retained by**
** **
**the      Registrant**
**      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**

----
§ 502.23 Notice of appearance; substitution and withdrawal of representative. ( a ) Upon filing of a complaint instituting proceedings or filing of an answer to an order or complaint, the party filing shall notify the Commission of the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), and email address(es) of the person or persons who will represent the party in the pending proceeding. Each person who appears in a representative capacity in a proceeding must deliver a written notice of appearance to the Secretary stating for whom the appearance is made. Such notice must indicate whether the representative wishes to be notified of notices, orders and decisions by either email or facsimile transmission. All appearances shall be noted in the record. Motions for leave to intervene must indicate the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), and email address(es) of the person or persons who will represent the intervenor in the pending proceeding if the motion is granted.
( b ) A Notice of Appearance should follow the form set forth in Exhibit No. 1 to this subpart.
( c ) An attorney must represent in the Notice of Appearance that he is admitted to practice and in good standing. A non-attorney must describe his or her authority to act in such capacity.
( d ) If an attorney or other representative of record is superseded, there shall be filed a stipulation of substitution signed both by the attorney(s) or representative(s) and by the party, or a written notice from the party to the Commission with a Notice of Appearance included. Substitution of counsel or representative will not, by itself, be considered good cause for delaying a proceeding.
( e ) If an attorney wishes to withdraw from representing a party, and written consent is not obtained, or if the party is not otherwise represented, the withdrawing attorney shall file an appropriate motion seeking permission to withdraw and provide appropriate reasons for making the motion. Such motion will be decided in consideration of the factors and standards set forth in Rule 1.16 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct and by the courts. [Rule 23.]
[64 FR 7807, Feb. 17, 1999, as amended at 78 FR 45069, July 26, 2013]
#### FLORIAN BEDNARIK, PLAINTIFF, v. MANUEL METH, DEFENDANT.

Decided May 7, 1929.

Before G-ummeke, Chief Justice, and Justice Pakkek.

Eor the rule, *Nicholas 8. Schloeder.*

*Contra, Warren Dixon.*

Pee Cukiam.

The plaintiff brought suit on a promissory note for $500 made by one Zemanek and endorsed by the defendant, Meth. The note was dated December 1st, 1925, and fell due thirty days from the date thereof. The defendant, Meth, filed an answer to the complaint denying liability, and, the case being at issue, it was regularly set down for trial at the Hudson Circuit on due notice. When the day fixed for the trial arrived the case was called and the trial thereof was moved by counsel for the plaintiff, both the defendant and his attorney being absent from the court. A jury was thereupon empanelled and the case tried *ex parte,*with the result that a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of the note. The defendant now asks to have this verdict set aside because the case was tried in the absence of himself and his attorney. We consider that the mere fact of such absence affords no reason for granting the relief sought. Presumably it was due to the neglect of the de*484fendant’s attorney. He attempts to excuse his absence by saying that he was led to believe, from inquiry among lawyers who had other causes in the trial list that his client’s case would not be reached on the day that it was called and moved; that relying on the result of his inquiry, he went away from town to attend to other business and was gone for several days, not returning until after the case was tried. His own statement as to the cause of his absence shows that the failure to put in a defense at the trial was due éntirely to his neglect of his client’s interests. If the defendant had a good defense and his attorney by his neglect deprived him of the opportunity to submit it, he, perhaps, may have a cause of action against his attorney for the loss which he has sustained, but this is not a matter now before us for decision.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.

Note—Mr. Sehloeder, who argued the rule, was not the attorney in the court below, of whom reference is made in the opinion.
<PAGE>   1
                         SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, constitutes and
appoints JOSEPH HINES and BRADLEY C. ANDERSON as his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended July 31, 2000, for filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission by Zila, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
together with any and all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same
with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting to such attorney-in-fact and agent,
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming that such attorney-in-fact and agent, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

     DATED:  October 27, 2000

                                             /s/ Kevin J. Tourek
                                             --------------------------
                                             KEVIN J. TOUREK

STATE OF ARIZONA    )
                    )
County of Maricopa  )

     On the 27th day of October, 2000, before me, the undersigned Notary Public,
personally appeared KEVIN J. TOUREK, known to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same
for the purposes therein contained.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

                                             /s/ Janice L. Backus
                                             --------------------------
                                             Notary Public


My commission expires:
[seal of Janice L. Backus]

                                       EXHIBIT
                                        24-G
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending June 23, 2007

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH to establish a temporary branch at the Highland Meadows Golf Club, 7455 Erie Street, Sylvania, OH. | Newspaper:06/12/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 06/12/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Germantown Cab Company, : Bucks County Services, Inc., :

Concord Limousine, Inc., Dee Dee : Cab Company and MCT : Transportation, Inc. :

:

v. :

: Philadelphia Parking Authority :

: Appeal of: Bucks County Services, Inc. : No. 1989 C.D. 2016

Germantown Cab Company, : Bucks County Services, Inc., :

Concord Limousine, Inc., Dee Dee : Cab Company and MCT Transportation :

:

v. :

: Philadelphia Parking Authority :

: Appeal of: Germantown Cab Company : No. 1990 C.D. 2016

O R D E R

NOW, November 13, 2017, upon consideration of Appellant

Germantown Cab Co.’s (Germantown) application for reargument/reconsideration

and the answers thereto, the application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

Germantown to seek enforcement of the Court’s order at an appropriate time shouldthe Philadelphia Parking Authority fail to refund Germantown’s fiscal year 2015

assessment payment, which this Court determined was assessed and collected

pursuant to an unconstitutional assessment scheme.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 150

To prohibit the importation of foreign-made flags of the United States of

America.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To prohibit the importation of foreign-made flags of the

United States of America.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Flag Fidelity

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN-MADE AMERICAN

7 FLAGS PROHIBITED.

8 After the date of the enactment of this Act, no flag

9 of the United States of America (regardless of size and

10 whether or not in compliance with the standard propor-
2

•HR 150 IH

1 tions prescribed by Executive order) that is the product

2 or manufacture of any foreign country or instrumentality

3 may be imported into the United States.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 106 (Monday, June 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 30812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant application and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Mentored 
Career Development Application.
    Date: June 26, 2007.
    Time: 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Kan Ma, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, EP 
Review Branch, NIH/NIAMS, One Democracy Plaza, Suite 800, MSC 4872, 
6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-4872, 301-594-4952, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f19c909ac3b19c90989ddf9f9899df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aac7cbc198eac7cbc3c684c4c3c284cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 24, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2765 Filed 6-1-07; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Henry R. Dunham, *Appellant, v.*Joseph Cudlipp and others, *Respondents.*Same *v.*Same.

Judgments affirmed. Opinion by

Dayis, P. J., and by Daniels, J., dissenting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           283,433
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     27,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (5,570)
<INVENTORY>                                       54,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 384,432
<PP&E>                                            51,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (22,677)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   432,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            475,484
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         169,683
<OTHER-SE>                                       368,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     432,524
<SALES>                                        4,423,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,423,545
<CGS>                                          3,030,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,030,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,888,163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (484,147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (484,947)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (484,947)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.03)



</TABLE>
§ 390.3 Policy considerations. ( a ) *In general.* It is the policy of the United States, as set forth in 46 U.S.C. 50501, that for the national defense and the development of its foreign and domestic commerce, the United States shall have a merchant marine: sufficient to carry a substantial portion of its water-borne export and import foreign commerce and to provide shipping service essential for maintaining the flow of such commerce at all times; capable of serving as auxiliaries in time of war or national emergency; owned and operated by United States citizens insofar as practicable and composed of the best equipped, safest and most suitable types of vessels, constructed and documented in the United States and manned with United States citizens.
( b ) *Unacceptable programs* — ( 1 ) *In general.* The Maritime Administrator will not enter into an agreement where the proposed program is not, in his opinion, in consonance with the policies of the Act.
( 2 ) *Specific unacceptable programs.* The Maritime Administrator will not enter into an agreement where the proposed program is merely to accomplish the following: ( i ) Reconstruction of an existing vessel, unless such reconstruction will exceed $1,000,000 in cost, will be capitalized under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations thereunder and will result in a vessel which is significantly more competitive;
( ii ) Acquisition of an existing vessel; or
( iii ) Payment of the principal on existing indebtedness.
( 3 ) *Waiver.* The Maritime Administrator may, for good cause shown, waive the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section. For example, the Maritime Administrator may waive the monetary limit in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section where the applicant proposes to reconstruct a small vessel.
[41 FR 4265, Jan. 29, 1976, as amended at 73 FR 56740, Sept. 30, 2008]
Exhibit 99.1





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



Based on my knowledge, I, Douglas T. Watson, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Digital Video Systems,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Digital
Video Systems, Inc.



April 15, 2003

/s/ Douglas T. Watson
          Douglas T. Watson
   Chief Executive Officer

---

Based on my knowledge, I, Robert Baker, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Digital Video Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the annual period ended January 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Digital Video
Systems, Inc.



April 15, 2003

/s/ Robert Baker
                       Robert Baker
                   Chief Financial Officer

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MEKKEL RICHARDS and 

ADAM MALINOWSKI, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Civil Case No. 15-12211 

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker 

 

DETROIT POLICE OFFICER GADWELL 

and DETROIT POLICE OFFICER REIZIN, 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION IN LIMINE

 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the City of Detroit and six City of Detroit 

police officers on June 18, 2015, asserting civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from their arrest on June 23, 2014, following the City 

of Detroit’s annual fireworks display. Following this Court’s May 11, 2017 decision 

granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 

the case remains pending against only two Detroit police officers: Brian Gadwell and 

Michael Reizin. Before the Court issued its decision, however, several defendants 

(including Officers Gadwell and Reizin) filed a motion in limine to preclude Plaintiffs 

from introducing certain evidence at trial. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiffs never filed a 

response to the motion and the matter currently is scheduled for a settlement 

conference before Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis on September 20, 2017. 
2 

 Due to the pendency of the settlement conference and because Plaintiffs have 

not indicated whether they in fact will seek to introduce any of the evidence addressed 

in the motion in limine, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied without 

prejudice at this time. If the parties do not settle the matter at the conference before 

Magistrate Judge Davis and they expect the case to proceed to trial, Plaintiffs shall 

inform Officers Gadwell and Reizin whether they intend to introduce any of the 

evidence addressed in the motion in limine. Officers Gadwell and Reizin may then 

make an oral motion in limine addressing that specific evidence during the final 

pretrial conference currently scheduled for October 4, 2017. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 55) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 31, 2017 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 31, 2017, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ R. Loury 

 Case Manager
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 Annual Report of Aura Systems, Inc. (the "Company")  on Form 10-K/A for the period ended February 28, 2002 as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Neal F.  Meehan, Chairman and 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, to 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  for the periods indicated.

  /s/ Neal F. Meehan  ------------------  Neal F. Meehan  Chairman & Chief Executive Officer  August 17, 2004