alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01   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 Quarterly Report of Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.     /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb By: Tammy-Lynn McNabb Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: August 18, 2009  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 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.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CRAMER GOLD, Jr., Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 60, 42 CMR 252

No. 23,085

August 21, 1970

*Captain Harry N. Lembeck,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

Evidence introduced to prove the intent to desert as charged also suggested that Gold had violated brig regulations. The law officer erred, therefore, by not including appropriate limiting instructions in his presen-tencing advice to the members of this general court-martial. (United States v Mallard, 19 USCMA 457, 42 CMR 59 (1970).)

Because the appellant received the maximum sentence imposable, we cannot be sure that this instructional failure did not work to the appellant’s prejudice. The confinement has been reduced during the appellate process but had the court-imposed sentence been less, subsequent reductions probably would have resulted in a lighter sentence than the one appellant now has. Accordingly, we set aside the *61decision of the Court of Military Review as to sentence and return the record of trial to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review for reconsideration of the sentence. (United States v Mallard, supra; United States v March, 19 USCMA 476, 42 CMR 78 (1970).)

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4576 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 629
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4576

    To amend the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
  Appropriations Act, 2015, to reauthorize the Colorado River System 
                      conservation pilot program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2024

 Mr. Hickenlooper (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Romney, Mr. Bennet, 
and Ms. Lummis) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                           November 21, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Manchin, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
  Appropriations Act, 2015, to reauthorize the Colorado River System 
                      conservation pilot program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Colorado River Basin System 
Conservation Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM CONSERVATION PILOT 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 206 of the Energy and Water Development and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (43 U.S.C. 620 note; Public Law 113-
235), is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``this Act'' and 
        inserting ``the Colorado River Basin System Conservation 
        Extension Act'';
            (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``2024'' and 
        inserting ``2026''; and
            (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``2025'' and inserting 
        ``2027''.
                                                       Calendar No. 629

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4576

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
  Appropriations Act, 2015, to reauthorize the Colorado River System 
                      conservation pilot program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 21, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
      (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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E];(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in the annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 (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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: March 31, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Amir RosenthalAmir RosenthalChief Financial Officer
No. 52598.

protests 50848-K and 50849-K (Cleveland).

#### The Alms & Doepke Company et al., v. United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within, the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entries 61 and 15. The protests were sustained to this extent.
'-··' 

### U.S. DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION OFFICEOFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON,D.C. f. ; J

IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES KEARNS Respondent. Docket No. FAA-2014-0683 Judge J.E. Sullivan
FAACase No. 2012S0275132

RULE26(f) REPORT The parties, pursuant to §13.217 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.P.R. 13.217), Federal ' Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f) and the Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and Directing Rule 26(f) Planning and Submission, hereby files its Rule 26(f) Report, Complainant states the following: 1. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.217 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), a teleconference was held with Respondent on December 29, 2014. At the teleconference, the parties discussed the nature and basis ofeach party's claims, the possibility ofresolving all or part ofthe case, the scope and type ofdiscovery and the place ofthe venue for the hearingin this matter. 2. The Complainantinitiated settlementdiscussions on December 29, 2014. 3. The parties propose that the parties will exchange the discovery disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) by January 9, 2015. 4. The parties propose that initial discoveryrequests will be madeby February 9, 2015. The parties will have until March 11, 2015, to respond to initial discovery requests.
1 ; </
..5. The parties propose that the parties serve any follow-up discovery requests by March 16, 2015. The parties will have until April15, 2015, to respond to follow-up discoveryrequests. 6. The parties propose that any objections to discovery requests must be made to the requestingparty within two weeks ofthe discovery request. 7. The parties propose that all dispositive motions mustbe filed by Apri130, 2015. 8. The Complainant proposes that a trial the week ofMay 12, 2015, in the New York area would be best. Respectfully submitted this 61hday ofJanuary 2015.

Senior ttorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

# gd~ JOHN.}it. MOSS,Esq. Attorney for Respondent

2

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Rule 26(f) Report Submitted by Complainant FAA was mailed by facsimile and Federal Express to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan DOT, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor Room E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 (FAX) (202) 366-7536 and via Federal Express to: John O.C. Moss, Esq. Moss & Moss, LLP 220 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 New York, New York 10001 and James Kearns 270 Union Street, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY 11231 and the original and one copyvia FederalExpress to: HearingDocket U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S.E. W shington, D.C. 20590

Dated

3
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 43 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 43

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 24 (legislative day, January 3), 2023

     Mr. Scott of Florida (for himself, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Hawley) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) is repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a) of such 
Act (2 U.S.C. 4501) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
            (3) by striking ``as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection'' and inserting ``adjusted as provided by law''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section shall take effect on the date on which the 119th Congress 
convenes.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Nexicon, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
      Company.



                       By:  /s/   Daniel  Urrea               May 19, 2005
                            -----------------------
                       Daniel Urrea
                       Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, 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 Nexicon, Inc. and will
be retained by Nexicon, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
(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 Trust.
 MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST VBy:
    
    /s/ ANGELA C. JONESName:
    
    Angela C. Jones*Title:
    
    Regular Trustee
  *
    
    Angela C. Jones functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Trust for purposes of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
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

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS, No. 2:04-cv-1206-MCE-PAN-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

PAT HOUGE, 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 August 2, 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. 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. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 72 Filed 08/25/06 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

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 August 2, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s October 27, 2005, motion for summary judgment is construed as a

motion for default judgment and said motion is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s February 24, 2006, motion is denied; and

4. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: August 24, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 72 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of ChiefFinancial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I,David D. Smith, 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)   theAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year endedJune 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: October 12, 2010  |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |
| /s/ David D. Smith           |   |
|                         |   |
| David D. Smith               |   |
| Executive Vice President and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer      |   |

 

----
****
****Compilations**
**July 2000 - Compilation of Maritime Laws**
**July 2000 - Compilation of Selected Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Laws** 
  

**
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲▲ ★

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/21

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 21 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
No. 64866.

#### Rathjen Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 46287-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 50055.

#### Protests 982773-G, etc., of Dodge & Olcott Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
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

DEWAYNE McGEE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1603-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

O. DICKINSON, 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 February 15, 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 days. Plaintiff has not 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-01603-GEB-DAD Document 35 Filed 05/05/06 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 February 15, 2006, are adopted in

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Mangis and Diggins are dismissed

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Dated: May 4, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD Document 35 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Harris v. Chico Nissan, et al., Case No. CIV. S-04-1149 WBS CMK 

Ex Parte Application and [Proposed] Order Amending the Law & Motion Cut-Off 

1 

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

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TONY HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

CHICO NISSAN, INC., 

RAYMOND L. BOWEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: CIV S 04-1149 WBS CMK

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

AMENDING THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO EXTEND THE LAW 

AND MOTION CUT-OFF 

 

TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 

Plaintiff makes this Application pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 6(b) and 16(b) and Local Rule 6-142. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

LYNN HUBBARD III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV, SBN 212970 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE 

CHICO, CA. 95926 

(530) 895-3252 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01149-DFL-CMK Document 29 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 2
Harris v. Chico Nissan, et al., Case No. CIV. S-04-1149 WBS CMK 

Ex Parte Application and [Proposed] Order Amending the Law & Motion Cut-Off 

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

27

28

Plaintiff Tony Harris hereby submits this ex parte application for an 

order amending the Court’s Scheduling Order to extend the last date to file 

law and motion. 

Whereas, plaintiff’s previous ex parte application had an error, and 

should not have sought an extension on the law and motion cut-off; 

Whereas, plaintiff would like to revert back to the previous scheduling 

order that was issued on September 13, 2004. 

Accordingly, plaintiff respectfully requests that the new date to file law 

and motion be extended to November 1, 2005. 

Dated: September 28, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

 /s/ Mark Emmett 

 

 MARK EMMETT 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER

Having considered Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order 

amending the scheduling order to extend law and motion cut-off and good 

cause having been shown; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) The last day to file law and motion matters is hereby extended 

until November 1, 2005. 

 

Dated: October 3, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01149-DFL-CMK Document 29 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEACH CHHOEUN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-01629 GEB CMK

vs.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

On January 27, 2005, petitioner filed an ex parte motion for substitution of

attorney. The court granted the requested substitution and the federal defender’s office was

replaced by CJA panel attorney Carolyn D. Phillips, as petitioner’s counsel. 

Recently, petitioner’s new counsel notified the court that she was not served with

a copy of respondents’ motion to dismiss, filed on January 24, 2005. As a result, petitioner’s

counsel was not aware that said motion had been filed. 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner is granted

sixty days from the date of this order in which to file his opposition to respondents’ motion to

dismiss. 

DATED: April 22, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01629-GEB-CMK Document 11 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 1