alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL 

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 

27 

28 

LA/611458v1 

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

BRUCE CELEBREZZE, SBN 102181 

MARIA LOUISE COUSINEAU, SBN 122280 

PAUL K. SONG, SBN 211183 

801 South Figueroa Street, 18th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556 

Telephone: (213) 426-6900 

Facsimile: (213) 426-6921 

Attorneys for Defendants 

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL: 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through 

their respective attorneys: 

1. The parties have reached a settlement to resolve the claims raised in 

this action, and the parties have executed a settlement agreement. 

2. In light of the settlement of this action, the parties stipulate to dismissal 

of the action in its entirety and, specifically, that the claims by Plaintiff Vicky 

Nelson against Defendant American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company be 

VICKY NELSON,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEMPER INSURANCE 

COMPANIES, KEMPER AUTO & 

HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, 

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS 

MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, UNITRIN, INC., AND 

DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 04-CV-1634 WBS/PAN

Hon. William B. Shubb 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Case 2:04-cv-01634-WBS-PAN Document 24 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2
2 

STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL 

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 

27 

28 

LA/611458v1 

dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED: *August __, 2005 WINSLOW & HURTUBISE 

By: 

Gregory F. Winslow 

Jerry A. Hurtubise 

Attorneys for Plaintiff VICKY NELSON 

DATED: *August __, 2005 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

By: 

Bruce Celebrezze 

Attorneys for Defendants AMERICAN 

MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to the above Stipulation, that plaintiff 

Vicky Nelson’s claims and causes of action against defendant American 

Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company in the above-referenced matter are 

hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs. 

DONE this 4th day of October, 2005. 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01634-WBS-PAN Document 24 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Greg Pelling, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
CounterPath Corporation

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change
in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the
small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 17, 2007.

/s/Greg PellingGreg Pelling
  Chief Executive Officer and Director 
  (Principal Executive Officer)

---
Exhibit
10.2.21








MICHAEL
J. CHESSER


Chairman
and


Chief
Executive Officer





April 7,
2005





Mr. John
Marshall


3
Innisbrook Lane


Brentwood,
TN 37027





Dear
John:





It is
with great pleasure that the Board of Directors of Kansas City Power & Light
Company offers you the position of Senior Vice President – Delivery of Kansas
City Power & Light.





The base
salary for the position is $320,000 with an annual opportunity, under the
current annual executive incentive plan, to earn up to 40% of annual salary at
target performance.  However, for 2005 you will receive a payment of
at least $128,000 under the annual executive incentive plan.  In
addition, under the long-tern incentive plan you will be eligible for awards of
up to 70% of annual salary.  The amount of your 2005 grant under the
long-term incentive plan will not be prorated for your actual length of service
in 2005.





You will
also receive a $640,000 one-time grant of restricted stock payable at the end of
three years upon continued employment.  Further, you will receive a
one-time cash payment of $150,000 upon your commencement of
employment.





We are
hopeful that you will be able to join us in mid April.  On joining
Kansas City Power & Light, you will be eligible for all corporate benefits
including management pension plan, supplemental executive retirement plan,
health care, four weeks vacation, and participation in the 401(k) savings plan,
deferred compensation plan and “change in control” severance
plan.  For pension benefits, you will receive two credited years of
service for every one year of service earned.  The additional year of
service will be paid as a supplemental retirement benefit.  If your
employment is terminated (other than for “cause” as defined in the severance
plan), in addition to any other applicable benefits or payments you will be paid
a lump sum equal to the target payment under the annual executive incentive plan
plus twice your base salary.





Kansas
City Power & Light will pay all reasonable costs of your relocation to
Kansas City, including moving expenses and temporary living expenses. We will
pay for two trips for you and your spouse prior to your move.





This
offer is contingent upon your successfully passing a physical exam as well as a
background check.





We are
excited about the future and look forward to welcoming you.





Sincerely,





/s/ Mike
Chesser
---

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

The undersigned, David Karp, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)         
 the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CounterPath Corporation for the
three-month period ended January 31, 2008 (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 CounterPath
Corporation

Date: March 14, 2008.



/s/ David
Karp
David Karp Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CounterPath
Corporation and will be retained by CounterPath Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 23.1.d

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-87190 on Form S-3 of Great Plains Energy Incorporated, Registration Statement No. 333-97263 on Form S-3 of Great Plains Energy Incorporated, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-98781 and 33-45618 on Forms S-8 of Great Plains Energy Incorporated of our report dated January 30, 2002 (relating to the financial statements of DTI Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") not presented separately herein and which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to the Company's filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern and an impairment charge recorded by the Company), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED'S DECEMBER 31, 1996
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  254,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (19,800)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,700
<PP&E>                                       3,211,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,996,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,595,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          312,400
<BONDS>                                        234,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       539,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,595,700
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,251,800
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  836,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3,800)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                403,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                   141,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            261,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   261,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>SECURITIES ARE NOT MATERIAL AND THEREFORE HAVE NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY
IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN THE CASH TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES AND THEREFORE HAS NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  THIS AMOUNT IS
INCLUDED IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IS INCLUDED IN COST OF SERVICE AND PRODUCTS
IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PURSUANT TO
REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1

NUMBER 13-15-00405-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MIGUEL RIVAS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria 

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Miguel Rivas, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number 13-CR-3492-G. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 

appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The 

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non-
2

appealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered 

while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with nonappealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 

645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon. 

Dason Roland, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant 

has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within 

thirty days of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant 

has a right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 

614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to 

appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under 

circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the 

applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by 

the record. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.
3

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 8th day of September 2015.
Before the Second Division,

February 14, 1950

No. 54015.

#### Bloomingdale Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 147394-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I, Michael J. Koss, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Koss Corporation (the “Company”)hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(i) the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 24, 2009              |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   |
| /s/ Michael J. Koss                     |   |
| Michael J. Koss                         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer,  President and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                 |   |

 

----
William Tepper <willt820@gmail.com> Sent by: Environmental Defense <takeaction@edf.org> 10/05/2010 02:09 PM Please respond to

William Tepper <willt820@gmail.com> To Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc bcc Subject ATTENTION Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491

Oct 5, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Dear U.S. Agency, ATTENTION Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491 I strongly support the proposed clean air plan to cut sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from eastern smokestacks. And I urge the EPA to strengthen its standards to secure greater health and environmental benefits. Your proposed rules to cut pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants would reduce power plant sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 71% from 2005 levels and nitrogen oxide (NOx) by 52% from 2005 levels. EPA's plan to clean up this smokestack pollution would protect public health by avoiding: 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 1.9 million days when people miss work or school, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 440,000 upper and lower respiratory symptoms. And EPA's Rule would yield benefits of more than $120 to $290 billion annually in 2014, compared to the estimated annual costs of $2.8 billion. I support these rules and urge the EPA to strengthen its standards even more to secure greater health and environmental benefits. Reducing these emissioons will only help relieve the economic burden on this country. Sincerely, William Tepper 125 Baycliff Dr Rochester, NY 14609-4015
No. 58018.

protest 219219-K (New York).

#### The Jawine Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
Attachment not available electronically.* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfa vors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/28/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT H. KETCHUM, also known as BOB KETCHUM, also known as R. H. KETCHUM, also known a ROBERT KETCHUM, also known as KENT C. NORMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee. Case No. 95-1527 (D.C. 95-X-115) (District of Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.Appellant Robert H. Ketchum appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellant has a history of filing frivolous appeals. His access to the courts has been properly restricted by the district court, and these restrictions have been affirmed on appeal. See Ketchum v. Cruz , 775 F. Supp. 1399, 1403-04 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d , 961 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s decision. Mr. Ketchum’s allegations are frivolous. We deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal. See Attach. (Dist. Ct. Order and Appendix A). Moreover, Mr. Ketchum’s efforts to litigate in violation of the limitations placed on him by the above cases may result in further sanctions, including possible fines. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (allowing a court of appeals to “award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee” if “an appeal is frivolous”); Christensen v. Ward , 916 F.2d 1462, 1469 (10th Cir.) (recognizing a court of appeals’ power under Fed. R. App. P. 38 “to impose sanctions . . . for the filing of frivolous appeals” and its “inherent power to impose sanctions that are necessary to regulate the docket, promote judicial efficiency, and . . . to deter frivolous filings”), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 999 (1990); Van Sickle v. Holloway , 791 F.2d 1431, 1437 (10th Cir. 1986) (imposing on the pro se plaintiff double costs and “a limited contribution to the United States for the cost and expenses of this

action”). “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Mathew 11:15 (King James). The mandate shall issue forthwith.3 Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge
(Reap. Dec. 9478)

#### Sterling Merchandise Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 918804.

(Decided June 23, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*467Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement upon a stipulation on the basis of which I find export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved, and that such value was the invoiced unit value, plus the item invoiced as “Export charge” of $38.20, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.