alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 IEH Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending March 29, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being, Michael Offerman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer), and Robert Knoth, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), of the Company, respectfully
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of the 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dated: November 15, 2013





|/s/ Michael Offerman                  | /s/ Robert Knoth              
|------------------------------------- | ------------------------------
|Michael Offerman                      | Robert Knoth                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer | Chief Financial Officer       
|(Principal Executive Officer)         | (Principal Accounting Officer)











This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not
be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing. A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



58
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/18/2023 1

Political Party’s Mailing 

Absentee Ballot Applications 

Republican Party of New Mexico v. New Mexico 

(Dee Benson, D.N.M. 1:00-cv-1307) 

A federal complaint challenged a new state rule prohibiting political 

parties from mailing out absentee-ballot applications. The case was 

assigned to a visiting judge after all judges on the local bench 

recused themselves. The presiding judge denied the plaintiffs immediate injunctive relief, and the case subsequently settled. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

party procedures; recusal; case assignment. 

On September 15, 2000, New Mexico’s Republican Party and its chair filed a 

federal complaint challenging a new rule by New Mexico’s secretary of state 

that prohibited political parties from mailing out absentee-ballot applications.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction.2

 On September 22, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary 

restraining order.3

Upon recusal by the local bench, the court assigned the case to visiting 

Judge Dee Benson of the District of Utah.4 On October 30, Judge Benson denied the plaintiffs immediate injunctive relief.5

 The court then gave the state 

defendants an extension of time to respond to the complaint while the parties negotiated a settlement.6

 The case was voluntarily dismissed on September 17, 2001.7

1. Complaint, Republican Party of N.M. v. New Mexico, No. 1:00-cv-1307 (D.N.M. Sept. 

15, 2000), D.E. 1; see Barry Massey, Absentee Ballot Issue Before Judge, Albuquerque J., Oct. 

4, 2000, at B3. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Republican Party, No. 1:00-cv-1307 (D.N.M. Sept. 15, 

2000), D.E. 2. 

3. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Sept. 22, 2000), D.E. 13. 

4. Assignment Order, id. (Sept. 22, 2000), D.E. 9; see Richard Benke, Absentee Voting Argument Rejected, Albuquerque J., Oct. 11, 2000, at B3. 

Judge Benson died on November 30, 2020. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Order, Republican Party, No. 1:00-cv-1307 (D.N.M. Oct. 30, 2000), D.E. 17; see Benke, 

supra note 4. 

6. Order, Republican Party, No. 1:00-cv-1307 (D.N.M. June 19, 2001), D.E. 21; Order, id.

(Dec. 14, 2000), D.E. 19. 

7. Voluntary Dismissal, id. (Sept. 17, 2001), D.E. 22.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,089] 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Jones Apparel Group, Inc., Bristol Production Department, Bristol, Pennsylvania. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-60,089; Jones Apparel Group, Bristol Production Department, Bristol, Pennsylvania (February 20, 2007).

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of February 2007. 

Ralph DiBattista, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7-3459 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-136311, 333-117654, 333-88304, 333-51126, 333-41485, and 333-92783 onForm S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-114361 and 333-114062 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Alliant Energy Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting standards), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alliant Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

February 28, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001052636
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   876,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               876,300
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 876,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    850,000
<COMMON>                                        26,300
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   876,300
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,897
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,897
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
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

TERRENCE BROWNLEE, No. 2:04-cv-0623-MCE-DAD-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

J. STOCKER, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

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 May 3, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which

contained notice to Plaintiff that any Objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20) days.

///

Case 2:04-cv-00623-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 06/01/06 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

Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 3, 2006, are

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, file on May 19,

2005, is dismissed; and 

3. This action is dismissed for failure to state a

cognizable claim for relief.

DATED: June 1, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00623-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

PR/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FENGTING LI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71352

Agency No. A097-873-053

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Fengting Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

FILED

JAN 06 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PR/Research 2 07-71352

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and de novo

questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). 

We deny the petition for review.

 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Li failed to establish 

the harms he experienced in China and the harms he fears upon return are based on

a protected ground. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (9th Cir. 2004)

(concluding that heavy-handed tactics used by police during an investigation for

legitimate purposes was not persecution on account of petitioner’s political

opinion). In particular, the record does not compel the conclusion that Li sought to

expose corruption that was inextricably intertwined with a government operation. 

Cf. Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Li’s asylum

and withholding of removal claims fail.

Li’s contention that the IJ was not an impartial adjudicator because she

relied on inconsistencies and personal conjecture is not supported by the record. 

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a

due process violation). 
PR/Research 3 07-71352

Finally, we reject Li’s contention that the IJ erred in making an adverse

credibility determination because the IJ explicitly found Li’s testimony to be

credible.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

FLEXSTENT, LLC, Appellant

v.

ABBOTT VASCULAR, INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., ABBOTT VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellees

______________________

2021

- 1246

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019

- 00882.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S IMON C ARLO F RANZINI

, Dovel & Luner, LLP, Santa Monica, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by
G REGORY S. D OVEL

, S EAN L UNER

.

M ICHAEL A. M ORIN

, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by Case: 21-1246 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2021G ABRIEL K. B ELL

, J ONATHAN M. S TRANG ; S RINIVAS G IRIRAJ P ATHMANABAN , Menlo Park, CA.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE

, O’M ALLEY

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 8, 2021

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 21-1246 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,370,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  491,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,049,897
<PP&E>                                          54,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,158,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,786,784
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,824,549
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,333,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,158,283
<SALES>                                        679,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  680,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (10,046)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,987
<DISCONTINUED>                                (66,957)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,970)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
1

Filed 3/10/21 P. v. Young CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLES DAVIS YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

A159701

(Contra Costa County Super. Ct.

No. 5130925-1)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Defendant Charles Davis Young was convicted by jury of residential 

burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)),2 assault with a deadly weapon (a 

cane) (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and false imprisonment (§ 237, subd. (a)), as well 

as an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, 

subd. (a)). The trial court found prior conviction allegations to be true and 

sentenced Young to a prison term of 45 years to life. In an unpublished 

opinion otherwise affirming the convictions, we agreed with Young that the 

sentence on the assault conviction should have been stayed under section 

654, and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Young (Jan. 3, 2019, 

A144481) [nonpub. opn.].)

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no 

substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

In resentencing Young, the court imposed the upper term of six years 

for the first degree residential burglary conviction, and doubled it to twelve

years based upon a prior strike (dated October 2, 2003 for § 192, subd. (a), 

manslaughter). The court imposed another three years, consecutive, for the 

enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a). The sentences for the 

assault and false imprisonment convictions were stayed pursuant to section 

654. Two prior convictions (for a robbery and another first degree burglary) 

brought five years each, adding another ten years under section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1). Young’s counsel pointed out to the sentencing court it now 

had discretion to strike those prior convictions, but the court declined to do 

so, while acknowledging it could. The new aggregate sentence totals 25

years, determinate.

Young now appeals the sentence imposed on him on remand. His 

appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, determined that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal,

requested that this court carry out an independent review of the record 

pursuant to Wende, and advised Young of his right to file any supplemental 

submission he may wish to file. Having conducted the independent review 

called for by Wende, we conclude there are no arguable issues that are worthy 

of addressing on appeal. We therefore affirm the new sentence.

STREETER, J.

WE CONCUR:

POLLAK, P. J.

BROWN, J.
----

----

I Informacje

Komisja

----

Kursy walutowe euro (1)

25 września 2006

(2006/C 231/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Źródło: referencyjny kurs wymiany walut opublikowany przez ECB.

----

----

Uprzednie zgłoszenie koncentracji

(Sprawa nr COMP/M.4319 — Mondi/Schleipen & Erkens)

(2006/C 231/02)

(Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)

----

(1)Dz.U. L 24 z 29.1.2004, str. 1.

----

----

Uprzednie zgłoszenie koncentracji

(Sprawa nr COMP/M.4396 — Apollo Group/TNT Logistics)

Sprawa kwalifikująca się do rozpatrzenia w ramach procedury uproszczonej

(2006/C 231/03)

(Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)

----

(1)Dz.U. L 24 z 29.1.2004, str. 1.

(2)Dz.U. C 56 z 5.3.2005, str. 32

----
### OGE Letter in Response to EPA Meeting Held 04/06/10. Regional Haze Funck, Kathryn to: Thomas Diggs, Joe Kordzi 04/29/2010 04:55 PM

Cc: "' j ssolomon@aep.com'", "'hlground@aep.com'" , "'eddie.terrill@deq.ok.gov'", "Horn, Trish", "Shoop, Kimber", "Branecky, David", "'ctwehland@JonesDay.com'"

From: "Funck, Kathryn" <funckka@oge.com> To: Thomas Diggs/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "' j ssolomon@aep.com'" < j ssolomon@aep.com>, "'hlground@aep.com'" <hlground@aep.com>, "'eddie.terrill@deq.ok.gov'" <eddie.terrill@deq.o k.gov>, "Horn, Trish" <hornpd@oge.com>, "Shoop, Kimber" <shoopkl@oge.com>, "Branecky, David" <branecda@oge.com>,



### Mr. Diggs and Mr. Kordzi,

Trish Horn has asked me to provide you with the attached document. If you have any problems opening the document please feel free to contact me directly. Thank you, Kathryn Funck Executive Assistant OGE Energy Corp. funckka @ oge

. com