alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6684.

#### STATE, EX REL., E. LLOYD POSEY, ET AL., vs. HON. T. C. W. ELLIS, JUDGE, ET AL.

Syllabus.

Where the only evidence in the record shows that the property in controversy exceeds in value the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), this Court is without jurisdiction of the appeal.

John Dymond, Jr., A. G-iffen Levy, for relators.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Eelators seek a mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to grant them an appeal from an interlocutory order causing alleged irreparable injury.

The co-respondent (plaintiff below) by affidavit and extract from the assessment roll shows that the present value of the thing in controversy, five squares' of ground, exceeds two thousand dollars, and sets up want of jurisdiction in this Court.

The only other matter in the record touching the value of the property in controversy is an allegation by said plaintiff in his petition below, “that said squares are of greater value than $100.00. ’ ’

*393Opinion and decree, March 27th, 1916.

It is claimed by relator that this 'Court has jurisdiction since it was held in Spremich vs. Maurepas Land Company, 114 La., 1053, that “for the purposes of the appeal the plaintiff is bound by the allegations of his petition as to the value of the property claimed by him, and neither his right of appeal nor the jurisdiction of the Court to which the appeal is taken fluctuate with the market value of such property.”

This decision is without the slightest application here. Plaintiff by the affidavit on file does not seek to .repudiate the allegations of his petition; on the contrary he confirms the allegations that the property was worth “more than $100.00,” by showing that it was in truth worth more than $2,000.00.

Nor is there any attempt to make the .appellate jurisdiction herein “fluctuate with the market value of the property.” The only evidence of the value of the property at any time is the affidavit, et cetera, on file showing that for four years or more the value has exceeded $8,-000.00.

We are clearly without jurisdiction in this matter.

It is therefore ordered that the preliminary order herein, issued be recalled and that relators’ application for a writ of mandamus be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this Court.

Application dismissed.
**CMF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18
- 02 46 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ZANE AARON TENOLD ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30
- day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including June 17 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 12 2020

05/12/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0246
Order entered March 10, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00197-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF V.I.P.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-02616

ORDER

The clerk’s record was filed February 15, 2019, and supplemented on May 

15, 2019. Missing from the record are a) all documents reflected in the docket as 

filed on or after March 7, 2018 and before April 3, 2018; b) the citation issued on 

November 21, 2017 reflecting service on appellant on December 14, 2017; and, c) 

two notices, one filed by the Attorney General and one filed by appellant, both on 

November 21, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(a)(1). 

We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a second 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the documents identified above WITHIN 
TEN DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4634 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, as the ‘‘Representative Maxine 

Bell Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2024 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, 

as the ‘‘Representative Maxine Bell Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE BELL POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 154 First Avenue East in Je6 rome, Idaho, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Rep7 resentative Maxine Bell Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4634 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Representative Maxine 

3 Bell Post Office’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 52302.

protest 112937-K (Cleveland).

#### Distilled Liquors Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

PBS COALS, INC. AND PENN POCAHONTAS COAL, CO.,

Respondents

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 126 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW

, this 24th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

1. Did the Commonwealth Court err in determining that the Coal companies had substantially deprived of the beneficial use and enjoyment of their mineral rights as a direct and immediate consequence of PennDOT’s

actions?

2. Does the Commonwealth Court’s decision conflict with the plain language of Sections 502(c)(2) of the Eminent Domain Code, because it preclu des the trial court from determining the extent and nature of a taking?

3. Did the Commonwealth Court err in remanding the matter to the trial court for determination of the extent and the date of the taking pursuant to Section 502(c)(2) of the Code, on ly?
November 30, 1954

No. 58560.

Suit 4797.

#### United States *v.*Metropolitan Petroleum Corp. and Herbert B. Moller.

C. D. 1547 reversed May 27, 1954. C. A. D. 567.
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

CAROL ROYE,

Plaintiff, CIV S-04-2192 DFL KJM PS

v.

FAIR ISAAC AND COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

A status conference was held before the undersigned on June 1, 2005. Plaintiff

appeared in propria persona. No appearances were made for defendants. Upon review of the

file, hearing discussion of plaintiff, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit proofs of

service indicating service of summons on defendants and shall file a status report regarding

service efforts on defendants who have not yet been properly served.

2. If plaintiff contemplates filing an amended complaint, she may do so to the

extent provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this district. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 12 Filed 06/02/05 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

3. A further status conference will be set as necessary. 

DATED: June 1, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006

roye.oas

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 12 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 62566.

#### Airport Clearance Service *v.*United States,

protest 323032-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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

JEFFREY MARSHALL, No. CIV S-04-1841-LKK-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

FAIRFIELD POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s

request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

with leave to amend. The court’s April 13, 2005, order directed plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within 30 days. On September 28, 2005, the court sua sponte granted plaintiff an

extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a document entitled “second

Case 2:04-cv-01841-LKK -CMK Document 29 Filed 10/28/05 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

The court notes that, while plaintiff entitles this document “second amended

1

complaint,” no prior amended complaints have been filed in this action. 

2

amended complaint” on October 14, 2005. Plaintiff also filed what appears to be an identical 1

document, also entitled “second amended complaint,” on October 21, 2005. The Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading “. . . once as a matter of

course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because no

responsive pleading has been served in this case, the court is unable to determine whether the

October 21, 2005, document is merely duplicative of the October 14, 2005, document, or whether

plaintiff intends the October 21, 2005, document to constitute an amended pleading filed as of

right pursuant to Rule 15(a). 

Before the court can conduct an initial review of plaintiff’s amended complaint as

required by law, plaintiff will be directed to inform the court whether he intends to proceed on the

October 14, 2005, or October 21, 2005, document. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with

this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall inform the court in

writing, within 20 days of the date of service of this order, whether he intends to proceed on the

October 14, 2005, or October 21, 2005, document.

DATED: October 27, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01841-LKK -CMK Document 29 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4594 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 

enforcing rules regarding disclosure of AI-generated content in political 

advertisements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. BUDD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 

promulgating or enforcing rules regarding disclosure of 

AI-generated content in political advertisements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending FCC Meddling 

5 in Our Elections Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4594 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

2 COMMISSION RULES REGARDING DISCLO3 SURE OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT IN POLIT4 ICAL ADVERTISEMENTS. 

5 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘rule’’ 

6 has the meaning given the term in section 804 of title 5, 

7 United States Code. 

8 (b) PROHIBITION.—The Federal Communications 

9 Commission may not promulgate or enforce any rule— 

10 (1) relating to the draft notice of proposed rule11 making circulated by the Chairwoman of the Com12 mission on May 22, 2024, regarding disclosure of 

13 the use of artificial intelligence-generated content in 

14 political advertisements on television, radio, or any 

15 other service covered by the proposal; or 

16 (2) that is substantially similar to a rule de17 scribed in paragraph (1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
##### 



Exhibit 31

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael J. Koss, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Koss 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 registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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 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 internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant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 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 10, 2004

/s/ Michael J. Koss
Michael J. Koss
Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chief Financial Officer
|   | Exhibit 21, Form 10-K |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company |
|--------|------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

|   | **SUBSIDIARIES** |
|--------|------------------|

 

 

 

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company's significant insurance subsidiaries are: |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

1.  Sunset Life Insurance Company of America, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington and redomesticated to the State of Missouri.

 

|   | 2.  Old American Insurance Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | The Company's non-insurance subsidiaries are not significant individually or in the aggregate. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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

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

MICHAEL H. ARTINIAN, SBN 203443

SPECTER & WILLOUGHBY, LLP

4675 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 1150

NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660

Telephone: (949) 833-9400

Fax: (949) 833-9425

Attorney for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GYPSIE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAYO OIL COMPANY; JOSEPH P.

MARCHI and NANCY C. MARCHI,

TRUSTEES OF THE JOSEPH PAUL

MARCHI and NANCY CAROLYN MARCHI

TRUST, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S.04-1884 MCE DAD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 2:04-cv-01884-MCE -DAD Document 11 Filed 05/06/05 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

27

28

- 2 -

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S

04-1884 MCE DAD, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 6, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01884-MCE -DAD Document 11 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 46727.

#### Protest 976253-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of jump sticks or trick paddles in chief value of wood the claim at 33% percent under paragraph 412 was sustained, following Abstract 44028.
Exhibit 32.1

CASH 4 HOMES 247

Certifications

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cash 4 Homes 247 (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of and for the period covered in the Report.

/s/Gordon Forgey   Gordon Forgey   President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 19, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 Partnership.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don R. Wellendorf                     
|Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: August 4, 2009                      

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