alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of The Dwyer
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dina Dwyer-Owens, Chief Executive 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:

         (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.

By:      /s/ Dina Dwyer-Owens
   -----------------------------------------
Dina Dwyer-Owens
Chief Executive Officer
July 31, 2003




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


EXHIBIT 99.1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4566 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4566

To terminate authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2010

Mr. Paulsen (for himself, Mr. Herger, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Lance, Mr. Jones, 
 Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Paul, Mr. Castle, and Mr. 
   Lamborn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To terminate authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Erasing our National Debt Through 
Accountability and Responsibility Plan Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
authorities provided under section 101(a) of the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (excluding section 101(a)(3)) and under 
section 102 of such Act shall terminate as of the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (b) Lowering of National Debt Limit To Correspond to TARP 
Repayments.--Section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after the dollar 
        limitation contained in such subsection the following: ``, as 
        such amount is reduced by the amount described under subsection 
        (d)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) The amount described under this subsection is the amount that 
equals the amount of all assistance received under title I of the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that is repaid on or after 
the date of enactment of this subsection, along with any dividends, 
profits, or other funds paid to the Government based on such assistance 
on or after the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12

Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(thousands of dollars)                                                               Year Ended September 30,
                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         2000        2001        2002        2003         2004
                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                    <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>
Fixed Charges Computation
     Interest expensed and capitalized                                 $ 3,603     $   145     $   417     $12,060      $ 13,857
     Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses
       related to indebtedness                                           3,034          79         136       3,857         6,031
     Reasonable approximation of interest within rental expense             26          20          72       1,139         1,462
                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges                                                      6,663         244         625      17,056        21,350

Preferred equity dividends                                                 378         113           -           -             -
                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges and Preferred Equity Dividends                     $ 7,041     $   357     $   625     $17,056      $ 21,350
                                                                  ===============================================================


Earnings Computation
Pre-tax income from continuing operations before adjustment
  for minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries or
  income or loss from equity investees                                 $ 8,642     $14,468     $40,236     $60,081      $105,107
Plus
     Fixed charges                                                       7,041         357         625      17,056        21,350
Minus
     Interest capitalized                                                    -           -           -         230           435
                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Earnings                                                         $15,683     $14,825     $40,861     $76,907      $126,022
                                                                  ===============================================================

Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and
  Preferred Stock Dividends                                               2.23      41.53       65.38        4.51          5.90
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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 filing of the Annual Report of Headwaters Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), we, Kirk A. Benson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven G. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Kirk A. Benson     
|Kirk A. Benson         
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 21, 2008      
|                       
|/s/ Steven G. Stewart  
|Steven G. Stewart      
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 21, 2008
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   Exhibit 23.01



                 Consent of Ernst & Young, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Internet Commerce & Communications, Inc. (S-3: No. 333-42100, S-4: No.
333-37762, S-3: No. 333-35900, S-3: No. 333-95185, S-8: No. 333-30198,
Post-effective amendment to Form S-1 on Form S-3: No. 333-52731, S-3: No.
333-70613) and in the related prospectuses of our report dated March 30, 2000,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Internet
Commerce & Communications, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 30, 2001
```

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                   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 HydroFlo, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven E.
Sanderson, 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 based on 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.

Date: February 14, 2005

/s/ STEVEN E. SANDERSON
Steven E. Sanderson
Chief Financial Officer
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JEWELL EVETTE JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:18cv37
vs.
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND

FAMILY SERVICES — CHILDREN
SERVICES DIVISION, et al.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(DOC. #29) IN PART AND DECLARING SAME MOOT IN PART;
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. #20)
SUSTAINED; PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN
TWENTY DAYS FROM DATE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS,
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) (DOC. #12 AND #13) OVERRULED
AS ULTIMATELY MOOT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING ONCE
PLAINTIFF FILES HER AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY
(DOC. #16, #17 AND #21) OVERRULED AS MOOT; DEFENDANTS’ FIRST
MOTION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (DOC. #28) BEFORE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHARON L. OVINGTON GRANTED

Plaintiff has filed a fifty-six page Complaint, to which Defendants have filed Motions to
Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Doc. #12 and #13. In a typically well-reasoned
Report and Recommendations, filed December 10, 2018 (Doc. #29), Magistrate Judge Sharon L.
Ovington recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend her Complaint be granted and that the
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, with Plaintiff's claim

under 42 U.S.C. 1981(a) dismissed.


Given that Plaintiff has asked to amend her Complaint, Doc. #20, and that Magistrate
Judge Ovington has granted her leave to do so, it appears to this Court to be an inefficient use of
judicial resources to rule on that part of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations,
dealing with the “merits” of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), when said motions are likely to become moot, in whole or at least in part, once the
Amended Complaint is filed. Accordingly, it is the Order of this Court that the Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Doc. #12 and #13, be OVERRULED,
without prejudice to refiling, in whole or in part, once the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint has
been filed.

Plaintiff is given leave to file her Amended Complaint, both with Magistrate Judge
Ovington’s Report and Recommendations and the strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in mind.

Defendants’ Motions and Supplemental Motions to Stay Discovery (Doc. #16, #17 and
#21), are OVERRULED, as moot, this Court leaving it up to Magistrate Judge Ovington to set a
new scheduling and discovery order once the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is filed. Likewise,
Defendants’ Motion for Scheduling Conference, Doc. #28, is OVERRULED, as moot, subject to
anew scheduling conference being set once Plaintiff has filed her Amended Complaint.

CEN

March 22, 2019 WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/96 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,407
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                       434
<INVENTORY>                                      7,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,285
<PP&E>                                          25,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,421
<BONDS>                                         15,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,176
<SALES>                                         60,305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,305
<CGS>                                           50,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (89)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       876
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (965)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,317)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,282)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.59)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

September 29, 2014

p0922 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2014

148721 & (18)(20)(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148721

COA: 318658

Oakland CC: 20 05

- 202583

- FC

TERRENCE TERRELL MOORE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a brief exceeding 50 pages is DENIED as

moot since the defendant’s b rief complies with MCR 7.212(B). The application for leave

to appeal the January 31, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is

DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief fro m judgment is prohibited by

MCR 6.502(G). The motions fo r letter request review and for miscellaneous relief are

DENIED.
#### David J. POTTER *v.*W. P. CITTY, Coroner of Miller County

74-196

516 S.W. 2d 597

Opinion delivered December 2, 1974

[Rehearing denied January 13, 1975.]

*277
      *Tackett, Moore, Dowd & Harrelson,*for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellant David J. Potter brought this action to enjoin the coroner, W. P. Citty. Potter alleged that the coroner, in connection with the death of Jimmie J. Potter, had conducted an illegal inquest; that the coroner was in a position to conduct further acts with regard to the death “without jurisdiction or authority to do so”. Potter prayed that the coroner be enjoined from such further activities. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint. Appellant here contends that the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The demurrer must be sustained because nowhere in the complaint, which is the only evidence before us, is it alleged in what capacity appellant brought this action. Consequently, the trial court could not tell whether appellant was an interloper who happened to have the same name as the deceased.

*278Secondly, appellant alleges that the coroner “is in a position to perform further acts in regard to the death of Jimmie J. Potter” without jurisdiction or authority to so act. It is not alleged that the coroner is threatening such actions; nor do we know from the pleading the particulars of those acts. Facts must be alleged which show that action is imminent; and that such acts would be so manifestly beyond the authority of the coroner as to constitute an abuse of power. *Moore*v. *Board of*Directors, 98 Ark. 113, 135 S.W. 819 (1911). A demurrer does not admit any facts that are not well pleaded. *Palmer*v. Cline, 254 Ark. 393, 494 S.W. 2d 112 (1973).

Finally, appellant was in error in seeking an injunction to prohibit the coroner from performing an act of discretion. The statute provides that if the circumstances of a death be unknown, or if the circumstances of a death indicate foul play, a coroner’s jury shall be summoned. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 42-301 (Repl. 1964) *et seq.*“It is not the duty of the coroner to inquire of sudden deaths, unless there is reasonable ground to believe that they are the result of violence or unnatural causes. The authority is to be exercised within the limits of a sound discretion, and when exercised, the presumption is that the coroner has acted in good faith on sufficient cause.” *Clark County*v. *Calloway,*52 Ark. 361, 12 S.W. 756 (1889).

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

MOZETTE CHINN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 3:18-cv-101 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

(by full consent of the parties) 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of 

Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

(Doc. #16). Specifically, the parties stipulate and petition this Court under EAJA to 

enter an order awarding Plaintiff $5,200.00 (five thousand two hundred dollars) in 

attorney fees and $0.00 in costs. Prior to Plaintiff filing an EAJA petition, the parties 

jointly reached a resolution to settle EAJA fees in this case. Their Stipulation 

represents a compromise on disputed positions and is not intended to set precedent for, 

or a representation of, any specific hourly rate or total number of hours. 

The award of attorney fees will fully satisfy and settle any and all of Plaintiff’s 

claims for attorney fees, costs, and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in this case. Any 

fees paid belong to Plaintiff and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that 

Plaintiff owes the United States, pursuant to the decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00101-SLO Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/11/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1204
2

586, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

After the Court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that 

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, Defendant agrees to direct that the 

award be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly 

signed by Plaintiff. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #16) is accepted 

and Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, and 

expenses in the total amount of $5,200.00; 

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this 

Decision and Entry, whether or not Plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to the United States subject to offset. If no such 

pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall pay the EAJA award 

directly to Plaintiff=s counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment 

signed by Plaintiff; and 

3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: June 11, 2020 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 3:18-cv-00101-SLO Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/11/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1205
#### Erhard Kundinger v. The Detroit, Grand Haven *&*Milwaukee Railway Company.

*Oonclumeness of findings of fact.*

.A finding of fact in a case at law tried without a jury, is conclusive where there is any evidence to found it upon, even though the evidence is conflicting.

Error to Wayne. (Jennison, J.)

June 22.

June 22.

■Case. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*WilUam, H. Bussell*and *George Jerome*for appellant.

*Edwcvrd A. Gott*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The only question in this case is whether the evidence in the case conclusively made out negligence ■on the part of plaintiff contributing to the injury of which he complains. Unless it did, he was entitled to recover. "We find, on examination, that there was evidence of such *186negligence, and also evidence of dne care; and the question-having been decided on the facts in plaintiffs favor, the finding is conclusive, and no question of law arises for decision now.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer Certification**

 

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for thepurpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

R. Jack DeCrane, the Chief Executive Officer andRichard J. Kaplan, the Chief Financial Officer of DeCrane Aircraft Holdings,Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.             theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and

 

2.             the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of DeCrane Aircraft Holdings,Inc.

 

Date: November 12,2004

 
|   | /s/ R. JACK DECRANE                                                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | R. Jack DeCrane                                                          |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                  |
|   |                                                                     |
|   |                                                                     |
|   | /s/ RICHARD J. KAPLAN                                                    |
|   | Richard J. Kaplan                                                        |
|   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,  Secretary and Treasurer |

 

----