alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted Pursuant To**

**Section      906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|  | ·  | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,                2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | ·  | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                      |                                                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                      | /s/ Peter              W.              DeVecchis, Jr. |
|   | Peter                W. DeVecchis, Jr.President(principal                executive officer)August                13, 2008 |

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

I, David D. Smith, ChiefFinancial Officer of Koss Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

 

(i) the Annual Reporton Form 10-K/A of the Company for the 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: June 30, 2010      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |
| /s/ David D. Smith            |   |
|                          |   |
| David D. Smith                |   |
| Executive Vice President  and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |

 

----
No. 43995.

#### Protest 21843-K of C. J. Mentrup Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the cocoa fiber mats in question are similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Penn*(27 C. C. P. A. 242, C. A. D. 93). The claim at 90 percent under paragraph 1529 (a) was therefore sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1926** 

CLOTILDE C. JIMENEZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 00624

- CMH

- MSN )

Submitted : January 10, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017

Before THACKER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Clotilde C. Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Montgomery Barnwell, Matthew Douglas Patterson, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Caroli na , Nathan Ira Brown, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Huntington, West Virginia, Sarah Reimers McIntee, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee s .
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM:
Clotilde C. Jimenez appeals the district court ’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Jim enez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. 1:16

- cv - 00624

- CMH

- MSN (E.D. Va. filed July 26, 2016; entered July 27, 2016). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Sanford v. Dale A. Miles dba Shell, et al.

 CIV. S-04-1185 DFL CMK

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ELLEN PAPADAKIS, SBN 186621

THELEN REID & PRIEST

101 2 Street, 18 Floor

nd th

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 371-1200

Facsimile: (415) 371-1211

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DALE A. MILES DBA SHELL; MENDOZAHARO ENTERPRISES, LLC DBA SHELL;

and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S. 04-1185 DFL CMK

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

Case 2:04-cv-01185-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Sanford v. Dale A. Miles dba Shell, et al.

- 2 - CIV. S-04-1185 DFL CMK

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, James

Sanford, and defendants, Dale A. Miles dba Shell and Mendoza-Haro Enterprises, LLC

dba Shell, the parties hereby request that all parties be dismissed with prejudice from

the above-entitled action.

Dated: September 8, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

/s/ Scottlynn J Hubbard, IV

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: September 8, 2005 THELEN REID & PRIEST

Signature On File

ELLEN PAPADAKIS, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S04-1185 DFL CMK, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: 9/9/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01185-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Sanford v. Dale A. Miles dba Shell, et al.

- 3 - CIV. S-04-1185 DFL CMK

Case 2:04-cv-01185-DFL-CMK Document 18 Filed 09/13/05 Page 3 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS ANTONIO PRECIADO,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

CIV S-04-1021 FCD GGH P

[PROPOSED] ORDER

ENLARGING TIME

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Respondent’s

application for a thirty-day enlargement of time to and including June 16, 2005, is hereby

GRANTED.

Dated: 5/11/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

prec1021.eot05

Case 2:04-cv-01021-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99



                                 April 26, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


         Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to Jacobson Stores Inc. that its
audit was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting
and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen was not relevant to this audit.

                                               Very truly yours,

                                               JACOBSON STORES INC.



                                                 /s/   John P. Cavanaugh
                                               --------------------------
                                               John P. Cavanaugh
                                               Vice President - Controller
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ISS GROUP, INC., AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          84,463
<SECURITIES>                                    44,434
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                       869
<INVENTORY>                                        707
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,600
<PP&E>                                          19,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,549
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,440
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     161,999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   193,738
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,291
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,757
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,070
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,070
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE CARL SAMPLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1132 FCD KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 / AD TESTIFICANDUM

Abraham Banks, inmate # T-99238, a necessary and material witness in

proceedings in this case on July 25, 2006, is confined in California State Prison Sacramento,

Prison Road, P.O. Box 290002, Represa, California 95671-0002 in the custody of the Warden

Scott M. Kernan; in order to secure this inmate's attendance it is necessary that a Writ of Habeas

Corpus ad Testificandum issue commanding the custodian to produce the inmate in Court, 15th

Floor, Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California on July 25,

2006, at 9:00 a.m. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court,

commanding the Warden to produce the inmate named above to testify in United States District

Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of court proceedings or

as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above institution; 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this

inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order and

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the Out-To-Court Desk, California State Prison -

Sacramento, P.O. Box 290007, Represa, California 95671.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

To: Warden Scott M. Kernan, California State Prison Sacramento, Prison Road, P.O. Box

290002, Represa, California 95671-0002:

WE COMMAND you to produce the inmate named above to testify before the

United States District Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of

the proceedings or as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above

institution.

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody

of the inmate and have been ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ.

DATED: June 14, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp; samp1132.841(2)

Case 2:04-cv-01132-FCD-KJM Document 31 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 51407.

#### Protests 502512-G, etc., of B. F. Montague Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, 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). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8631)

Entry No. 1426, etc.

#### Naumes Forwarding Service (A. C. Weber) *v.*United States

(Decided August 31, 1956)

*Wallace & Schwartz*for the plaintiffs.

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

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule "A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been limited, by agreement between the parties, to “sewing machines, sewing machine heads or parts of sewing machines exported from Germany” that are covered by the entries listed in said schedule “A.”

These appeals are before me on an agreed set of facts, sufficient to establish that cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for appraisement, and that such statutory value for the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, and I so hold.

As to all other merchandise covered by these appeals for reappraisement, they have been abandoned, and are, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

November 3, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129397 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129397 COA: 245099 Van Buren CC: 00-011976-FC JUNIOR FRED BLACKSTON, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to that court for reconsidera tion of the issue whether the trial court’s error, if any, in excluding the statements in question was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court should fu lly evaluate the harmless erro r question by considering the volume of untainted evidence in support of the jury verdict, not just whether the declarants were effectively im peached with other inco nsistent statements at the first trial. If the court concludes that the error was harmless, it should consider defendant’s remaining allegations of error.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would deny leave to appeal.

p1031 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 3, 2005
Clerk
Just 1 inch of water  can cause $25,000 of damage to your home.          

See how much a flood could cost you.

            Source: FEMA.gov,                          "Big Cost of Flooding"            

            Estimates based on national FEMA flood loss tables of cash value loss.          

Which home is most like yours?

        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -            -   
          -
#### Bagley *et al. vs.*Stephens.

Though one of plaintiffs below was not barred when suit was first brought, yet as that suit was dismissed and there was no renewal of it for over six months and he was barred before the second suit, he had no right to recover. Hence there was no error in granting new trial, though there was an offer to write off the verdict in favor a of plaintiffs the interest of another plaintiff whose claim was admitted to be barred.

2. Besides, the evidence was conflicting, and this being the first grant of a new trial, it will not be disturbed.

June 1, 1887.

Actions. Statute of limitations. New trial. Before Judge Smith. Chattahoochee superior court. September term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Z. A. Littlejohn and TIatcher & Peabody, by brief, for plaintiffs.

C. J. Thornton, for defendant.

Simmons, Justice.

1. There was no error in the grant of a new trial in this case by the court below, even though the plaintiffs offered to. write off from the verdict the recovery had in favor of Mrs. Bagley, who ivas clearly barred by the statute of limitations. It appears from this record that John Bagley, one of the plaintiffs in the court below, was also barred when the last suit was instituted. The first suit was filed *737August 23d, 1884, and dismissed by the plaintiffs March 24th, 1885, and was renewed September 28th, 1885, making six months and four days between the dismissal of the first suit and. the filing of the second. The code, §2932, provides that “if a plaintiff shall be nonsuited or ‘shall discontinue or dismiss his case,. and shall recommence within six months, such renewed case shall stand upon the same footing, as to limitation, with the original case.” The statute of limitations had not fully run against John Bagley when he brought the first suit, but he was barred before the second suit was instituted, and not having recommenced the same within six months, the statutory bar applied to him; and therefore the court was right in granting a new trial on that ground.

2. Besides, even if the statute had not run against-John Bagley, the evidence being conflicting and .this being the first grant of a new trial, this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4333 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4333

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 2024

   Mr. Vance (for himself, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Braun) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

    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 ``Domenic and Ed's Law''.

SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO PARENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 437(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1087(d)) is amended by inserting ``or becomes permanently 
and totally disabled (as determined in accordance with regulations of 
the Secretary), or if the student is unable to engage in any 
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 
physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death, 
has lasted for a continuous period of not less than 60 months, or can 
be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 60 
months,'' after ``dies,''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any outstanding loan that is received by a parent borrower 
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act, and without 
regard to the onset date of the disability or impairment.
                                 <all>
```
ra.v,v

' ■ eft

- ■' ,\ \--^®

■/ ' f ^0

BEXAR COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUSTICE

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

300 Dolorosa #3200

San Antonio, TX 78205

: r CARLOS ANTONIO RAYMOND

Appellant

VS

MARTIN JOSEPH ROY,

PIZZA VENTURE OF SAN ANTONIO, LLC

Appellee

TRIAL CASE# 2015-CV-00935

APPEAL # 04-17-00061-CV

DATE: OCTOBER 30, 2017

MOTION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY THE RECORD PURUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 10(e)

Appellant, Carlos Antonio Raymond, prose, hereby moves this Court to correct the record. In support of this

motion, Appellant RAYMOND states as follows:

1. In both Appellant's AMENDED AND REPLY BRIEFF, Appellant made reference to the only witness

secured and called by Pizza Venture at trial. Appellant referred to such witness as MARTHA LONSTON,

and the record should be corrected to read, Ms. ANDREA STARKS, Pizza venture Operations Assistant.

2. To recap previous points of argument. Pizza Venture failed to adequately and sufficiently address

the relevant testimony of Ms. Andrea Starks and the evidentiary Papa John's Pizza DUTY ROSTERS in its

brief. This Duty Roster was admitted into evidence and is believed to be fabricated (made) up to deceive the

jury.

3. All along and throughout the pre-trial and discovery proceedings, Pizza Venture adamantly and

vehemently insisted and asserted that MARTIN JOSEPH ROY was " not schedule to work on the day of the

accident. Ms. Andrea Starks' testified to a DUTY ROSTER that was admitted into evidence on the day of

trial. She also testified that MARTIN JOSEPH ROY was not "listed on such duty roster, thus he was not

scheduled to work on the day of the accident."

4. Now, in complete contradiction. Pizza Venture has now briefed," The driver of the other vehicle,

Roy, was apparently on his way to his job at a Papa John's pizza restaurant owned by Appellant Pizza

Venture, where Roy worked as a pizza delivery person.