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



EXHIBIT 32 Written Statement of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Extendicare Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Mel Rhinelander, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify solely for purposes of complying with 18
U.S.C. § 1350 that based on my knowledge:  (1)
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Mel RhinelanderMel RhinelanderChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2005  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Extendicare Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Richard L. Bertrand, Senior Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify solely for purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350 that based on my knowledge:  (1)
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Richard L. BertrandRichard L. BertrandSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerMay 13, 2005  56
No. 60031.

#### Royal Bead Novelty Co. Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 283153-K and 283154-K (New York).

*476Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of opaque white glass stones of different sizes and shapes, not faceted, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59105, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D. DUSTIN,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0672-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

R. TOWNSEND, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 8, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00672-GEB -JFM Document 38 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 8, 2006 are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

Dated: May 1, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00672-GEB -JFM Document 38 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Askia S. ASHANTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITFIELD, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-15540.

D.C. No. CV-00-86-DFL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

*551Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and grants Ashanti’s motion to waive oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Asida S. Ashanti, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the judgment of the district court dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act screening provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Because Ashanti declined the opportunity to amend his complaint in the manner specified by the magistrate judge’s January 31, 2000 order, but chose to stand on his original complaint and obtain a judgment of dismissal, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *Cf. WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (prescribing this procedure). We review de novo, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Because prison officials were not required to tell Ashanti why he was subjected to random urinalysis, the complaint did not state a cognizable Fourth Amendment violation, and the district court properly dismissed this claim. *See Thompson v. Souza,*111 F.3d 694, 702 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that even non-random drug testing in prison can be reasonable under *Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n,*489 U.S. 602, 617-18, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), when based on legitimate criteria and not intended to harass). Although Ashanti did allege that the drug testing was not truly random, he did not allege that the testing procedure was used to harass him and, thus, his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim also fails. *See id.*

Because a urine sample is not testimonial, and because Ashanti was not accused of any offense, Ashanti failed to state a claim under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. *See United States v. Edmo,*140 F.3d 1289, 1292-93 (9th Cir.1998).

Ashanti lacked standing to pursue his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that the prison’s urinalysis policy conflicted with state laws or regulations because he was not charged with any violation. *See Darring v. Kincheloe,*783 F.2d 874, 876-77 (9th Cir.1986).

We have not considered those documents attached to Ashanti’s appellate brief that were not part of the record before the *552district court. *See Partridge v. Reich,*141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Defendants made no appearance before the district court or on appeal.
No. 51636.

#### Protests 127734-K, etc., of Crown Publishers et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KYLE RAINEY : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 01-623

:

BEN VARNER, et al :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2008, upon consideration of the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 1), the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Peter B. Scuderi, the petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, the

Commonwealth’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and after oral argument

and a thorough and independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi is

APPROVED IN PART and ADOPTED IN PART;

2. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that a writ of habeas corpus be

issued is NOT ADOPTED;

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; and,

4. The petitioner having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, there is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability. 

 /Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:01-cv-00623-JKG Document 53 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000053316
<NAME> JEFFERSON BANCORP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                     $17,545,682
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     315,472,313
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,700,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                117,953,847
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,243,260
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,254,000
<LOANS>                                    264,165,380
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,434,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             433,002,786
<DEPOSITS>                                 371,287,015
<SHORT-TERM>                                19,424,965
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,635,204
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,999,496
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,624,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             433,002,786
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             22,439,259
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            7,942,963
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               410,143
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            30,792,365
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,541,958
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,462,921
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       17,329,444
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             627,600
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             18,705,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,681,271
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,681,271
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,909,032
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.08
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,520,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   852,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,278,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,152,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,164,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   296,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,434,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,434,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        262,000
        

</TABLE>
No. 57975.

protests 217680-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alfin Trading Corp. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-326]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Correction of Notice of Proposed Additions & Deletions; 
Correction of Notice of Proposed Additions

    In the document appearing on page 75496, FR Doc E6-21358, 
Procurement List Proposed Additions and Deletions, in the issue of 
December 15, 2006, the Committee published additions and deletions with 
a comment period to end date of January 21, 2007. The Committee is 
making a correction to the comment date. The new deadline for the 
submission of comments is January 14, 2007.
    In the document appearing on page 76966, FR Doc E6-21940, 
Procurement List Proposed Additions, in the issue of December 22, 2006, 
Committee published additions and deletions with a comment period to 
end date of January 28, 2007. The Committee is making a correction to 
the comment date. The new deadline for the submission of comments is 
January 21, 2007.

Sheryl D. Kennerly,
Director, Information Management.
 [FR Doc. E7-326 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 11, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01389-CV STEPHEN HOLLOWAY AND ALL OT HER OCCUPANTS, Appellant V. PINWELL INVESTMENTS LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-04637-C MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck , Reichek, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Schenck We reinstate this appeal. In 2014, we abated this case due to b ankruptcy. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an indepe ndent review of the federal P ublic Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which shows t he bankruptcy case associated with this appeal was terminated on June 1, 2018 , effectively dissolving the automatic stay. We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the C ourt of the status of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the fai lure to respond would result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c). To date, neither party has responded.–2– Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we shoul d not dismiss the appeal for want of p rosecution and no one responded , we dismiss this appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co. , 2002 WL 31312990, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not des ignated for publication).

131389F.P05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

STEPHEN HOLLOWAY AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant

No. 05-13-01389-CV V. PINWELL INVESTMENTS LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-04637- C. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Reichek and Carlyle participating.
In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered May 11, 2021
No. 61308.

protest 288857-K (New York).

#### James H. Rhodes *&*Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance withforal stipulation of counsel that the facts contained in the letter of the collector, dated April 5, 1956, stating that “the dutiable value was inadvertently based on the original appraised units of value instead of the invoice units, as ordered” by the court in *James H. Rhodes & Co.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 518, Reap. Dec. 8330) are true and correct, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the "Company") that the Annual Report of the Company on
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as and the results of the
operations of the Company.




/s/ Joseph Czyzyk                                 Dated: October 14, 2002
-------------------------------------------
Joseph Czyzyk
President and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Robert Schlax                                 Dated: October 14, 2002
-------------------------------------------
Robert Schlax Vice President of Finance and
Principal Financial Officer
Reap. Dec. 10695.

reappraisements R62/1113 and R62/1114.

#### Omega Import Co. *v.*United States,

Entered at Norfolk, Va. Reap. Dec. 10671. Motion by defendant.
Before the Third Division,

February 14, 1950

No. 54026.

#### French Italian Wine Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 84898-K, etc. (New York).

*370Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reason stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices 

# Order

September 3, 2021

163246

- 52(67)

GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER,

Appellant,

SC: 163246

v COA: 354474

Bd of State Canvassers:

00

- 000000

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

JAMES MAKOWSKI,

Appellees.

_________________________________________

GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER,

Appellant,

SC: 163247

v COA 354475

Bd of State Canvassers:

00

- 000000

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

BRENDA LACHAPPELLE,

Appellees.

___________ ______________________________

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GARLIN

GILCHRIST, II,

Appellant,

SC: 163248

v COA: 354582

Bd of State Canvassers:

00

- 000000

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

CHAD BAASE,

Appellees.

_________________________________________2

GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER,

Appellant,

SC: 163249

v COA: 354583

Bd of State Canvassers:

00

- 000000

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

CHAD BAASE,

Appellees.

_________________________________________

GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER,

Appellant,

SC : 163250

v COA: 354794

Bd of State Canvassers:

00

- 000000

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

JAMES MAKOWSKI,

Appellees.

_________________________________________

GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER,

Appellant,

SC: 163251

v COA: 354795

Bd of State Canvassers:

00

- 000000

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

MICHAEL GARABELLI,

Appellees.

_________________________________________

GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER,

Appellant,

SC: 163252

v COA: 354878

Bd of State Canvassers:

00

- 00 0000

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and

JOHN PARKINSON,

Appellees.

_________________________________________ /I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

S eptember 3, 2021 3

Clerk O n order of the C hief J ustice, the motion of defendant

- appellee Board of State

Canvassers to extend the time for filing its answer to the application for leave to appeal is

GRANTED

. T he answer submitted on S eptember 2, 2021, is accepted as timely fi led.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of M.D.P., a child, * From the 318 th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM64398

.

No. 11

- 18

- 00146

- CV * November 20 , 2018

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Gray, C.J., sitting by assignment,

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t here is

no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion,

the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAULL :

:

 :

VS. : C.A. NO. 02-4461

:

KEMPER, INC., et al. :

BEFORE WEINER, J.

AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2002, the aboveentitled matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending

notification to the Court as to how counsel intend to proceed. 

The case is to remain in status quo and the Statute of

Limitations is tolled. 

This matter remains ACTIVE. It is further understood

that all discovery and settlement discussions will continue and

if intervention by the Court is needed or desired, the parties

may ask for assistance by either filing the appropriate motions,

writing to the Court or by setting a telephone conference. The

parties shall keep the Court advised of the status of this case

and may request a firm trial date or settlement conference by

writing directly to the Court or by telephone conference. 

ATTEST: OR BY THE COURT:

BY_______________________ ________________________

 COURT ROOM DEPUTY Charles R. Weiner, SJ 

 Sheila M. Jeffers 

Case 2:02-cv-04461-CRW Document 13 Filed 12/31/2002 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Kim S. Price, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:

| | A) | 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.   78m(a) or 78o(d)) and                                                               
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly   presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of   operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the   Report.

|                 |                                      
|---------------- | -------------------------------------
|November 9, 2005 | /s/ Kim S. Price                     
|Dated            |                                      
|                 | Kim S. Price                         
|                 | President and Chief Executive Officer

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

---