alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-34746, No.333-38020, No. 333-84958 and No. 333-121331 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated February 28, 2008,relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of GrantPrideco, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on those financialstatements and financial statement schedule and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding theCompany’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123(R), *Share-based Payment,*on January 1, 2006) and the effectiveness of Grant Prideco’s internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Grant Prideco, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2007./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPHouston, Texas
Before the Third Division,

May 6, 1958

No. 61897.

#### U. S.-Asiatic Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 230859-K (C) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, the entry, invoice, and collector’s letter of transmittal were received in evidence, and it was stipulated that the factsfset forth therein were true and correct. The protest was limited to item No. 449 on *543invoice No. 3, described as “Large donkey planter.” An examination of the collector’s report showing that he would not object to the claim of the plaintiff, the protest was sustained as to said item.
No. 54084.

#### Syndicate Arkwright Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 145463-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
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 Cheviot Financial Corp. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the “Report”), I, Scott T. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 operations of the Company.





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


/s/ Scott T. SmithScott T. SmithChief Financial Officer
 Date:  May 12, 2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

I, Michael J. Koss, ChiefExecutive 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/ Michael J. Koss                     |   |
|                                    |   |
| Michael J. Koss                         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer,  President and |   |
| Chief Operating Officer                 |   |

 

----
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

JOSE ALFREDO SOTO

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2122 MCE EFB P

vs.

D. ADAMS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On August 18, 2006, the court denied petitioner’s request to stay this action and

hold it in abeyance, and gave petitioner 30 days either to notify the court that he intended to

proceed on the July 25, 2005 petition, or to file a motion to amend the petition with an amended

petition.

On September 8, 2006, petitioner filed a request to proceed with the July 25, 2006,

petition. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s September 8, 2006, request is granted and this matter proceeds on the

petition filed July 25, 2006;

////

Case 2:04-cv-02122-MCE -EFB Document 29 Filed 10/05/06 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

2. Respondent shall file and serve an answer or motion responding to the application

within 60 days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An

answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the

determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254

Cases. 

3. If the response is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within

30 days of service of an answer. 

4. If the response is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement of no opposition shall

be filed and served within 30 days of service of the motion. Respondent shall have 15 days to

file and serve a reply to any opposition.

Dated: October 5, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02122-MCE -EFB Document 29 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 97-60853 Summary Calendar

________________________ TAWANATHA REID Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant-Appellee

________________________ No. 98-60072 Summary Calendar

________________________ AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee
v. TAWANATHA REID; BRADLEY REID Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant and BRADIE REID, a minor by and through Bradley Reid, the natural father Defendant - Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (2:97-CV-98-PG & 2:97-CV-261-P-G)

_________________________________________________________________ September 14, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 PER CURIAM: * The appellants, Tawanatha Reid, Bradley Reid, and Bradie Reid, appeal from two adverse judgments, one dismissing a claim of bad faith and the other granting a motion for final summary judgment on a declaratory action, both in favor of American Premier Insurance Company. On appeal the appellants challenge, as they did before the district court, the legality under Mississippi law of a clause excluding liability coverage as to family members in an automobile insurance policy issued to the Reids by American Premier. They argue that the clause was abrogated by both the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Glaskox v. Glaskox , 614 So.2d 906 (Miss. 1992) and by § 63-15- 43(3) of the Mississippi Safety Responsibility Act. In addition, the appellants move to certify the question of the validity of the exclusionary clause to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. That motion is denied. We find the appellants’ arguments to be without merit. The Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld a similar exclusionary clause in Thompson v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. , 602 So.2d 855 (Miss. 1992). While the court did subsequently abolish parental immunity in Glaskox , see Glaskox , 614 So.2d at 912, that decision did not speak to the validity of an exclusionary rule in an automobile liability insurance policy and therefore did not overrule Thompson . The appellants’ second argument is also3

without merit since the Supreme Court of Mississippi’s decision in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Mettetal , 534 So.2d 189 (Miss. 1988), plainly indicates that the Reid’s insurance policy was not governed by § 63-15-43(3) of the Mississippi Safety Responsibility Act. After a consideration of the appellants’ arguments, the entire record, and a de novo review of the legal findings of the district court, the judgments below are AFFIRMED for these reasons, which are essentially the same as provided by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated December 16, 1997. AFFIRMED.
No. 76-137.

#### Davis *v.*Hecht et al., Commissioners, Board of Elections of Dutchess County.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
Before the First Division,

March 30, 1945

No. 50083.

#### Protests 8666-K, etc., of Anco Import Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the beads in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), certain of the items were *228held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 and others at 20 percent under the same paragraph as modified by T. D. 49458. The protests were sustained to this extent.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41252

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR HERNANDEZ-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-999-1

--------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar

Hernandez-Flores (Hernandez) on appeal has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hernandez has not responded to

counsel’s motion.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue in this appeal. Accordingly, the motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 05-41252

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
##### 



Exhibit 99.6

CONSENT OF APPOINTED ACTUARY

I consent to the use and incorporation by reference of the following report in
the Form 40-F, dated February 12, 2003 to be filed on behalf of Sun Life
Financial Services of Canada Inc. (the Company):

My report dated February 12, 2003 on the valuation of the policy liabilities of
the Company for its Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2002 and 2001
and their change in its Consolidated Statement of Operations for the years then
ended.

Dated February 18, 2003

/s/ Robert Wilson

Robert W. Wilson
Vice-President and Appointed Actuary
Fellow, Canadian Institute of Actuaries
Toronto, Canada
Exhibit 4.2


 


 





	Non-Voting Common Stock Shares	 
	 	 	No. of shares


 


[HCSB FINANCIAL CORPORATION LOGO]


 


HCSB FINANCIAL CORPORATION


INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA


 


This certifies that                                                              


 


 is the owner of                                                                            


 


Shares of Non-voting Capital Stock of
HCSB Financial Corporation, transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon
surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer
Agent and Registrar.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate
Seal to be hereunto affixed, by facsimile. 


 


 


 


	Dated:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Jan H. Hollar	 	[Corporate Seal]	/s/ D. Singleton Bailey
	Jan H. Hollar	 	 	D. Singleton Bailey
	President/CEO	 	 	Secretary
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	[Countersigned]
	 	 	 	BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS INC.
	 	 	 	
        1717 ARCH ST., STE 1300

        PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 /

	 	 	 	Transfer Agent /
	 	 	 	Authorized Signature


 







 






    

     

    

HCSB FINANCIAL CORPORATION


 


The following abbreviations, when used
in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable
laws or regulations.


 


	TEN COM	—	as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT —	 	Custodian	 	(Minor)
	TEN ENT	—	as tenants by the entireties	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act	 	 	 	(State)
	JT TEN	—	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	 	 	 	 	 	 


 


Additional abbreviations may also be
used though not in the list.


 


For value received,                                                               hereby
sells, assigns and transfers unto


 


Please insert Social Security or
Other Identifying Number of Assignee


 


 


 


PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS
INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE


 


 


 


Shares of the capital stock represented
by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 


Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the
within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


 


	Dated,	 	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 	NOTICE:	 
	 	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 	 
	 	 
	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:	 
	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
No. 61360.

protest 283661-K (New York).

#### Hershey Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items in question are not in chief value of galalith but that they are in chief value of steel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
**EXHIBIT 12.1****COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES****Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges                           **Six Months Ended**  **Year Ended December 31,**   **June 30, 2007**  **2006**  **2005**  **2004**  **2003**  **2002**   **($ in thousands)**Fixed charges (1):                        Interest expense $386,940  $606,725  $185,935  $79,053  $39,956  $13,974 Interest capitalized  168   414   932   —   —   — Interest portion of rental expense  817   1,327   1,244   1,494   843   429                    Total fixed charges $387,925  $608,466  $188,111  $80,547  $40,799  $14,403                                             Earnings:                                                 Net income before noncontrolling interest expensesand income taxes $214,314  $350,749  $269,072  $205,421  $132,480  $41,582 Fixed charges  387,925   608,466   188,111   80,547   40,799   14,403 Less: Interest capitalized  (168)  (414)  (932)  —   —   —                    Total earnings $602,071  $958,801  $456,251  $285,968  $173,279  $55,985                                             Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  **1.6****x**  **1.6****x**  **2.4****x**  **3.6****x**  **4.2****x**  **3.9****x**                    (1) Excludes interest related to the application of FIN 48**
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS

COUNCIL,

NO. CIV. S-04-2583 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

GAIL NORTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

In order to have time to sufficiently prepare for hearing on

the cross-motions for summary judgment, the hearing date is

CONTINUED to December 2, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4.

The previous briefing schedule remains. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02583-LKK -CMK Document 46 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 1
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

09/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
Case No. 14,478.

#### UNITED STATES v. AUJA.

[10 Int. Rev. Rec. 52.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

1869.

Internal Revenue — Prosecution for Violations — Failure to Make Entry in Books.

It is no defence for a dealer in leaf tobacco, to a charge of violating the provision of section 76 of the act of Julv, 1868 [15 Stat. 158], in not making proper entries in the book, form 77, that his bookkeeper had neglected to make the entries. The principal is criminally responsible. *Held*to await action of grand jury.

Before J. A. SHIELDS, United States Commissioner.

The defendant in this case [L. J. Auja] was charged with a violation of the seventy-sixth section of the internal revenue act of 1868, which provides “that all dealers in leaf tobacco shall enter daily, in a book kept for that purpose, the number of hhds., cases, and pounds of leaf tobacco sold by him, &c., with the name and residence in each instance of the person to whom sold, and, if shipped, to whom and to what district.” The evidence in this case showed that the defendant had failed to make the entries in the book for the space of nearly two months, viz., from 22d May until 19th July, the day he was arrested, the book being put in evidence showed such an omission. The defence admitted the omission, but claimed that the defendant was not responsible, for the reason that his bookkeeper had neglected to make the entries, and, consequently, the defendant was not criminally responsible.

The commissioner held that the act made it imperative for every dealer in leaf tobacco to make such entry daily, as provided by the law. And that if such dealer delegated such duty to another person to do, and such person neglected it, it would not excuse the defendant, and that he must be held responsible for such omission.

Defendant held to await action of grand jury.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 4, 2007, at 1 p.m., Eastern Time. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2360. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, April 4, 2007, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, P.O. Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI, 53201-3205, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org*. Please contact Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for additional information.                 

The agenda will include the following: discussion of issues and responses brought to the Joint Committee; office report; and discussion of next meeting. 

Dated: March 7, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E7-4600 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v DENNIS V. HOMMEL, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellee

21 USCMA 277, 45 CMR 51

*278No. 24,713

March 24, 1972

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, and *Lieutenant E. Perry Johnson,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, United States.

*Lieutenant James T. Newsom,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee', Accused.^

Opinion

Quinn, Judge:

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy has certified the same question certified in United States v Johnson, 21 USCMA 270, 45 CMR 44, decided this date.

On March 6, the military judge, sitting as a special court-martial without court members, noted on the record that he “would recommend” suspension of the bad-conduct discharge adjudged by him. After trial, he and trial counsel executed a document titled, “Petition for Clemency,” in which they referred to evidence in behalf of the accused “as revealing] an excellent history of conduct, proficiency” and other traits. It was recommended that this record be “considered with a view towards suspension of the bad conduct discharge” imposed at trial.

The record of trial was authenticated on March 29, and on April 5, the convening authority approved the sentence, without suspension and without mention of the recommendations with regard thereto. As it did in *Johnson,*the Court of Military Review set aside the action of the convening authority and that of the general court-martial authority, and directed “a new action by the convening authority and . . . further review” because it doubted that the convening authority had been aware of the recommendation.

Although the nature of the trial judge’s recommendation, as it appears in the petition for clemency, is more like that in United States v Gibson, 21 USCMA 276, 45 CMR 50, decided this date, than the one in *Johnson,*supra, considered in conjunction with the judge’s statement at trial as to the kind of recommendation he would make, the Court of Military Review could properly conclude, as it did, that the recommendation was specifically for suspension of the discharge. Consequently, all the pertinent facts in this case are substantially like those in *Johnson.*

For the reasons set out in our opinion in *Johnson,*we answer in the affirmative the certified question which asks whether the determination of the Court of Military Review was correct, and we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.

Darden, Chief Judge

(concurring in the result):

I concur in the result. See my opinion concurring in the result in United States v Johnson, 21 USCMA 270, 45 CMR 44 (1972).

Duncan, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v Johnson, 21 USCMA 270, 45 CMR 44 (1972).