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











In connection with the Annual Report of Klever Marketing, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul G. Begum, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Paul G. BegumPaul G. BegumChairman and CEOMarch 31, 2010








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.
# EXHIBIT 32.1

** **

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FirstHartford Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July  31, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Neil H.Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

1.         The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and  results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 

 

                        NeilH. Ellis                        

NeilH. Ellis

Presidentand Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: October 19, 2009
#### CALIFORNIA CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, v. Ivy EDWARDS, Respondent.

No. 41019.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 30, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 245 So.2d 259.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ORIGINAL
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 


OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 


) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 

a limited partnership, ) 

Respondents. ) 

------------------------------~) 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION OF NON-PARTY 

MUELLER WATER PRODUCTS, INC. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On April 30, 2012, non-party Mueller Water Products, Inc. ("Mueller") filed its second 

unopposed motion to extend the time for Mueller to file a Motion to Quash or Limit a Subpoena 

Duces Tecum (the "Subpoena") served on it on or about March 15,2012 by Complaint Counsel. 

By Order dated March 28,2012, Mueller was previously granted an extension oftime to 

move to limit or quash the Subpoena through April 30,2012. 

In support ofits motion, Mueller states that it has produced documents and data pursuant 

to an agreement with Complaint Counsel. However, Complaint Counsel has requested additional 

time to review those documents and data to determine whether Complaint Counsel deems the 

Subpoena response sufficient. Mueller further states that Complaint Counsel does not oppose an 

extension through May 31,2012 or five (5) calendar days from the date on which either party 

notifies the other via email that negotiations have broken down, and ifneed be, to further 

negotiate with Mueller regarding its response to the Subpoena, which would potentially avoid the 

need for Mueller to file a motion to quash or limit the Subpoena. 

Based on the foregoing, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED 

that the deadline for non-party Mueller to file any motion to limit or quash the Subpoena shall be 

May 31, 2012 or five (5) calendar days after Mueller or Complaint Counsel notifies the other via 

email that negotiations have broken down. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappe I 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: May 1, 2012
261 La. 176

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Lee WILLIAMS.

No. 51652.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1972.

Roy L. Wood, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leonard E. Yokum, Dist. Atty., William M. Quin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Robert Lee Williams, appeals from a conviction of attempted murder, La.R.S. 14:27, 14:30, for which he was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in the state penitentiary.

The defendant perfected no bills of exceptions. We are therefore limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings .and proceedings for discoverable error. La.C.Cr. P. art. 920; State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971). We find none.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Anna B. HUSSAR, Appellant, v. GIRARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Texas corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-716.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 1, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1971.

James J. Rowan, of McCutcheon & Rowan, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

William L. Johnson, of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

This case is affirmed on authority of Carter v. Carter, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 153 and In re Estate of Maxcy, Fla.App. 1970, 240 So.2d 93. The public policy prohibition against permitting a person to benefit from his own wrongdoing should apply to a recovery under a health and accident insurance policy by an insured for intentionally and voluntarily self-inflicted injuries while legally sane.

Affirmed.

LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
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

Case No. 4:18-cv-00806-SBA

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON RECEIVER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMERICAN FINANCIAL BENEFITS 

CENTER, a corporation, also d/b/a AFB and 

AF STUDENT SERVICES; AMERITECH 

FINANCIAL, a corporation; FINANCIAL 

EDUCATION BENEFITS CENTER, a 

corporation; and BRANDON DEMOND 

FRERE, individually and as an officer of 

AMERICAN FINANCIAL BENEFITS 

CENTER, AMERITECH FINANCIAL, and 

FINANCIAL EDUCATION BENEFITS 

CENTER,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-00806-SBA

[PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING 

ON RECEIVER’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION SEEKING COMPLIANCE 

WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 

WHY DEFENDANT BRANDON FRERE 

SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CIVIL 

CONTEMPT

Case 4:18-cv-00806-SBA Document 189-4 Filed 12/04/18 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

1 Case No. 4:18-cv-00806-SBA

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON RECEIVER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Before the Court is the Receiver’s Ex Parte Application Seeking Compliance with 

Preliminary Injunction and Order to Show Cause as to Why Defendant Brandon Frere Should 

Not Be Held in Civil Contempt (ECF No. 189). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any opposition to the Receiver’s Ex Parte Application 

Seeking Compliance with Preliminary Injunction and Order to Show Cause as to Why Defendant 

Brandon Frere Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt (ECF No. 189) must be filed on or before 

_______________________. Any reply in support of the Receiver’s Ex Parte Application must 

be filed on or before _______________________.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on the Receiver’s Ex Parte Application 

Seeking Compliance with Preliminary Injunction and Order to Show Cause as to Why Defendant 

Brandon Frere Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt (ECF No. 189) is scheduled for ________

a.m./p.m., _______________________.

Dated: 

Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong

Senior United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-00806-SBA Document 189-4 Filed 12/04/18 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 8 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk August 8 , 2018

15 8 015 ( 42 )

KEAGAN FARRIS, by and through his

Next Friend, JAMES FARRIS

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 158 015

v C O A : 337366

Antrim CC: 2016

- 009053

- NM

JOHN H. M C KAIG, II

,

Defendant

- Appellee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to substitute “ ELIZABETH ELLEN

MCKAIG, Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN H. MCKAIG, II ” as the

defendant

- appellee in all further proceedings before this Court is GRANTED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**535 KA 13-00309**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R. Merrill, A.J.), rendered November 13, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in People v Brown ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [June 10, 2016]).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jacob BAKER.

No. 60601.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 9, 1977.

In re: Jacob Baker applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order.

Writ denied.. Adequate remedy by review.
Exhibit 12-B





DELMARVA
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY





RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS


(Dollars in Thousands)





3 Months Ended March 31, 2002

Year Ended December 31,2001

2000

1999

1998

1997Income before extraordinary item

$
20,855

$
203,409

$
141,816

$
142,179

$
112,410

$
105,709Income taxes


14,601


141,810


81,510


95,321


72,276


72,155Fixed charges:Interest on long-term debt including amortization of discount, premium and expense


11,546


63,765


77,178


77,790


81,132


78,350Other interest


776


3,388


7,512


6,117


9,328


12,835Preferred dividend requirements of a subsidiary trust


1,422


5,687


5,687


5,687


5,688


5,687Total fixed charges


13,744


72,840


90,377


89,594


96,148


96,872Nonutility capitalized interest

















(208
)Earnings before extraordinary item, income taxes, and fixed charges

$
49,200

$
418,059

$
313,703

$
327,094

$
280,834

$
274,528Fixed charges

$
13,744

$
72,840

$
90,377

$
89,594

$
96,148

$
96,872Preferred dividend requirements


695


6,354


7,787


7,417


7,150


7,556$
14,439

$
79,194

$
98,164

$
97,011

$
103,298

$
104,428Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred dividends


3.41


5.28


3.20


3.37


2.72


2.63





For purposes of computing the ratio, earnings are income before extraordinary
item plus income taxes and fixed charges, less nonutility capitalized interest. Fixed charges consist of interest on long- and short-term debt, amortization of debt discount, premium, and expense, dividends on preferred securities of a subsidiary
trust, plus the estimated interest component of rentals. Preferred dividend requirements represent annualized preferred dividend requirements multiplied by the ratio that pre-tax income bears to net income.
260 La. 71

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dennis COMBS.

No. 51616.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1971.

Jonathan C. Harris, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of armed robbery, for which he was sentenced to be confined in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for twenty (20) years. La.R.S. 14:64.

The defendant perfected no bills of exception. We are therefore limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920; State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971). We find none.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 10.32

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

NEENAH PAPER SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN

(As amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2009)

 

WHEREAS, Neenah Paper, Inc. (“Company”) maintains the Neenah Paper Supplemental Retirement Contribution Plan (“Plan”);

 

WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 7.2 thereof;

 

WHEREAS, effective as provided below, the Company desires to amend the Plan to update the definition of “Spouse” so the definition is consistent with the definition in the Neenah Paper Retirement Contribution Plan; and

 

NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of September 16, 2013, the Company hereby amends the Plan by deleting Section 2.23 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

 

“2.23                  Spouse.  The Employee’s spouse pursuant to a legal marriage according to the laws of the State or other jurisdiction in which such marriage occurred.”

 

Except as specifically set forth above, the terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer on the 3rd day of March, 2014.

 

	
 
    	
NEENAH PAPER, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Richard Read
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Richard   Read
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
VP   - Human Resources
    


 

NP SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN — FIRST AMENDMENT

 

1
#### ALAN CUTLER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. NEW ENGLAND DIAMOND CORP., a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-105.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1969.

Lurié & Goethel, Miami, for appellant.

Harry M. Ross, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

New England Diamond Corp. sent certain jewelry to the appellant concern on consignment in November and December of 1965, accompanied by a memorandum which read in part as follows:

> “ * * * This merchandise after being received by you, until receipted for by us, is at your own risk against any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever, whether caused by your negligence or not. * * * ”

Thereafter, in April of 1966, the jewelry was stolen as a result of an armed robbery. New England brought suit to recover. The appellant denied liability, contending that the memorandum agreement had not been executed and, therefore, there was no contractual liability on it to respond because of the loss due to the robbery. The facts *702were without dispute. The trial judge rendered a final summary judgment in favor of the appellee, and we affirm.

The acceptance of the jewelry with the written memorandum without complaint by the consignee rendered it responsible for the items, in accordance with the memorandum agreement which accompanied the delivery of the jewelry. In this connection, see the following: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Slifkin, D.C., N.D.Ala.S.D.1961, 200 F.Supp. 563; Nelkin v. Marvin Hime & Co., 1964, 228 Cal.App.2d 744, 39 Cal.Rptr. 701; Allemania Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Keller Diamond Corp., S.Ct.N.Y. 1950, 101 N.Y.S.2d 9.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
Complaint Exhibit A
Complaint Exhibit B
Complaint Exhibit C
Complaint Exhibit D
Complaint Exhibit E - 1

UrthBox.com Desktop Landing Page: Screen Shot (1 of 2)
Complaint Exhibit E - 2

UrthBox.com Desktop Landing Page: Screen Shot (2 of 2)
Complaint Exhibit E - 3

UrthBox.com Desktop Choose Box Type Page: Screen Shot
Complaint Exhibit E - 4

UrthBox.com Desktop Checkout Page: Screen Shot (1 of 3)

UrthBox.com Desktop Checkout Page: Screen Shot (2 of 3)
Complaint Exhibit E - 5

UrthBox.com Desktop Checkout Page: Screen Shot (3 of 3)
Complaint Exhibit F-1

UrthBox.com Mobile Landing Page: Screen Shot (1 of 2)

UrthBox.com Mobile Landing Page: Screen Shot (2 of 2)
C I!! https· www.urthbox.com

SELECT BOX TYPE 

. . 

Complaint Exhibit F-2

UrthBox.com Mobile Select Box Type Page: Screen Shot
Complaint Exhibit F-3

UrthBox.com Mobile Checkout Page: Screen Shot (1 of 5)

UrthBox.com Mobile Checkout Page: Screen Shot (2 of 5)
Complaint Exhibit F-4

UrthBox.com Mobile Checkout Page: Screen Shot (3 of 5)

UrthBox.com Mobile Checkout Page: Screen Shot (4 of 5)
Complaint Exhibit F-5

UrthBox.com Mobile Checkout Page: Screen Shot (5 of 5)
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
                            Certification Pursuant to
                               Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity as an officer of Escalon Medical Corp. (the "Company"), that, to his
knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


Date: September 24, 2002                         /s/  Richard J. DePiano
      ------------------                         -----------------------
                                                 Richard J. DePiano
                                                 Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                 Officer (Principal Executive
                                                 Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2112

LAVERN R. CRUMP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (MCEA); MARYLAND 

STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (MSEA),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14-

cv-00229-PWG)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lavern R. Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Elliot Rockman, 

SEROTTE, ROCKMAN & WESCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lavern R. Crump appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her civil action asserting wrongful termination and 

breach of the duty of fair representation. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Crump v. Montgomery 

Cnty. Educ. Association, No. 8:14-cv-00229-PWG (D. Md. Sept. 23, 

2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER

John Krebs

Chief Privacy Officer

Karen Jagielski

Privacy Attorney (detail)

Matthew Smith

Privacy Specialist

Sabiha Zafar

Privacy Specialist
concluding that Dearion's postconviction petition did not challenge his 

conviction or sentence but contested the constitutionality of the parole 

board's interpretation and application NRS 193.165. As such, the district 

court reasoned, Dearion's "complaint is aimed at more than his guilt or 

innocence, but is intended to challenge the very existence of the statute." 

Therefore, according to the district court, the petition could be filed in the 

court for the county in which Dearion is incarcerated. See MRS 34.738(1). 

Petitioner argues that because Dearion's postconviction 

petition challenges the validity of his sentence and therefore must be filed 

in the jurisdiction where his conviction occurred, the district court is 

obligated to transfer the petition to the clerk of the Eighth Judicial 

District Court under NRS 34.738(2)(b). We agree. In his postconviction 

petition, Dearion argues that MRS 193.165, as applied to his sentence, 

created a separate offense requiring a parole board hearing for release and 

therefore violated the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double 

jeopardy. That is a challenge to the validity of his sentence, despite 

Dearion's assertions in his pleadings below that it is not. See generally In 

re Samford, 249 S.W.3d 761, 762 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008) (observing that 

pleading is defined by its substance). Because NRS 34.738(2)(b) compels 

the district court to transfer Dearion's postconviction petition to the 

Eighth Judicial District Court, a writ of mandamus is warranted. See 

NRS 34.160 (providing that mandamus is available to compel the 

performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an 

office, trust, or station); Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 

1The district court filed an amended order denying the motion for 

reconsideration in this court on November 19, 2015. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 
aitta 

Pioem1:1, 

ibbons Pickering 

601, 603, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) ("A writ of mandamus will issue when 

the respondent has a clear, present legal duty to act."). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the 

district court to transfer Dearion's postconviction petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus to the clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court pursuant 

to NRS 34.738(1), (2)(b). 

cc: Hon. Jim C. Shirley, District Judge 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Attorney General/Reno 

Wayne Cox Dearion 

Pershing County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A e