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

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                       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 Cost Plus, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended February 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Murray H. Dashe, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.

         /s/ Murray H. Dashe

           Murray H. Dashe
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)
May 1, 2003

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

                  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       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 Cost Plus, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended February 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John J. Luttrell, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.

        /s/ John J. Luttrell

          John J. Luttrell
       Chief Financial Officer
   (Principal Accounting Officer)
May 1, 2003
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Lawrence R. Burfitt, II 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv260 

C/O M. Erving, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on May 3, 2018 (Doc. 8). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report 

and Recommendation have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) of 

the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s excessive-force claims against 

defendants Erving, Ruckel, Parish, Esaum, Buroughton, Sparks, and Warren and 

plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claims against defendant Nolan shall remain pending. 

Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5, 6) are DENIED. 

 
2 

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would 

not be taken in good faith and would be denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett 

United States District Judge
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DarrelL. Posegate, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|        |    /s/ Darrel L. Posegate |                          |
|--------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|   | Darrel L. Posegate, Executive Vice       |
|   | President, Chief Financial Officer       |
|   | and Treasurer                            |
|   |
|   | Date:                                    |   February 12, 2007 |   |
|        |                                          |                               |  |

 

*                                         Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to HF Financial Corp. and will be retained by HF Financial Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Eleventh Meeting of the Parties (Beijing, 29 November – 3 December 1999) Decision XI/5: Further Amendment of the Montreal Protocol The Eleventh Meeting of the Parties decided in Dec. XI/5 to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol as set out in annex V to the report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties. 

### Page 1 of 1 Decision XI/5: Further Amendment of the Montreal Protocol Eleventh Meeting of the Par ...

1/2/2014 http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/Treaties/treaties_decisions - hb.php?nav_id=630
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

All the companies listed below are included in the companys
consolidated financial statements. Except as otherwise indicated below, the Company has 100% direct or indirect ownership of, and ultimate voting control in, each of these companies. The list is as of December 31, 2008 and excludes subsidiaries
which are primarily inactive or taken singly, or as a group, do not constitute significant subsidiaries:



|                                   |  |                                    |  |                  
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Subsidiary                         |  | State or Province of Incorporation |  | Percentage
Owned 
|Unit Drilling Company              |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100%             
|Unit Petroleum Company             |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100%             
|Superior Pipeline Company, L.L.C.  |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100%             
|Unit Texas Drilling Company L.L.C. |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100% (indirectly)
#### Lewis *v.*Lewis.

4-8704

217 S. W. 2d 346

Opinion delivered January 24, 1949.

Rehearing denied February 28, 1949.

*Leland F. Leatherman,*for appellant.

*Boy Mitchell,*for appellee.

Geobgb Rose Smith, J.

On December 11, 1945, the appellee obtained a divorce in Garland county, his-wife being a resident of Montana. In the following August, she filed a complaint to vacate the decree, on the ground that by giving a fictitious address in his affidavit for warning order the appellee had prevented her from knowing anything about the suit until she received a copy of the decree on February 4. The chancellor refused to set the decree aside.

Appellee gave the address as 1501 South Fifth Street, West, Missoula, Montana, when in fact appellant was living at 1901 South Fifth Street, West. The attorney *ad litem*sent a letter of notification to the former number, but it, was returned with notations of “No Such *455Number” and “For Better Address.” Appellee testified that Ms wife bad written him that she had moved from No. 1901 to No. 1501, but he did not produce this letter. He also testified that he employed a Missoula attorney in an effort to find appellant. This lawyer wrote on November 26 that he had offered a copy of ap-pellee’s complaint to the attorney acting for appellant in a divorce action of her own in Missoula, but her attorney stated that he had no authority to accept service. Although this letter further inquired whether appellee wanted a summons served on his wife, the appellee apparently dropped his search at that point and obtained his decree two weeks later.

We think the proof entitled appellant to the relief sought. The correct address was the home of appellant’s parents, which the appellee knew, the couple having lived in Missoula until their separation in August, 1945. The suit was filed in October, and appellant introduced correctly addressed letters written to her by appellee in the preceding August and September. Even if we accept appellee’s explanation of the error, as the chancellor must have done, he could still have found the appellant with very little effort. His Missoula attorney’s letter of November 26 contained an offer to obtain service, which appellee ignored. Within less than two months after the decree was rendered the appellee did ascertain appellant’s whereabouts and supplied her with a copy of the decree — which he pleaded a few days later in bar of her Montana suit. When we consider that appellee was familiar with Missoula and knew the address of his wife’s parents, with whom she was actually living, we think his failure to notify her of the pendency of his suit requires that the decree be vacated. *Stewart*v. Stewart, 101 Ark. 86, 141 S. W. 193.

Appellant sufficiently alleged a meritorious defense by asserting that the separation was caused by her husband’s conduct, which was described, rather than by hers.' Her delay of six months in bringing this action was not unreasonable in view of her explanation and the absence of any change of position on appellee’s part.

Reversed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4621 

To protect the integrity of the constitutionally mandated United States census 

and prohibit deceptive mail practices that attempt to exploit the decennial 

census. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2010 

Mrs. MALONEY (for herself, Mr. TOWNS, and Mr. CLAY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To protect the integrity of the constitutionally mandated 

United States census and prohibit deceptive mail practices that attempt to exploit the decennial census. 

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 ‘‘Prevent Deceptive Cen5 sus Look Alike Mailings Act’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4621 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR MAIL BEARING THE TERM 

2 ‘‘CENSUS’’ ON THE ENVELOPE OR OUTSIDE 

3 COVER OR WRAPPER. 

4 (a) MATTER SOLICITING PURCHASE OF A PRODUCT

5 OR SERVICE.—Section 3001(h) of title 39, United States 

6 Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘; or which bears the term 

8 ‘census’ on the envelope or outside cover or wrap9 per’’ after ‘‘such matter by the Federal Govern10 ment’’; and 

11 (2) by inserting at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(4) In the case of matter bearing the term 

14 ‘census’ on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper, 

15 in addition to satisfying one of the exceptions con16 tained in paragraphs (1), (2), or (3), such envelope 

17 or outside cover or wrapper bears on its face an ac18 curate return address including the name of the en19 tity that sent such matter.’’. 

20 (b) MATTER SOLICITING INFORMATION OR CON21 TRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—Section 3001(i) of title 39, 

22 United States Code, is amended— 

23 (1) by inserting ‘‘; or which bears the term 

24 ‘census’ on the envelope or outside cover or wrap25 per’’ after ‘‘such matter by the Federal Govern26 ment’’; and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4621 IH

1 (2) by inserting at the end the following new 

2 paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(4) In the case of matter bearing the term 

4 ‘census’ on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper, 

5 in addition to satisfying one of the exceptions con6 tained in paragraphs (1), (2), or (3), such envelope 

7 or outside cover or wrapper bears on its face an ac8 curate return address including the name of the en9 tity that sent such matter.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 292,463
<CASH>                                          45,588
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              57,588
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 646,445
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                200,908
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             32,274
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 72,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   646,445
<PREMIUMS>                                     111,435
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              5,284
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              16,768
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  34,829
<BENEFITS>                                      95,509
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     36,715
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            20,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,088
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,886
<DISCONTINUED>                                (23,268)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,382)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 129,657
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            133,465
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               24,411
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              61,410
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                61,375
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                164,748
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         24,411
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6550

JOHN HILL,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-6553

JOHN HILL,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:05-cv-00015-AWA-TEM; 2:05-cv-00086-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Hill, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Uberman, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his motions to set aside judgments in two 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceedings. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSHUA ADAMS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4672 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; John K. Stargel, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

FERNANDO TELLO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50383 

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00987-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Fernando Tello appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 29 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-50383 

Tello contends that the district court erred by denying him a minor role 

reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review a district court’s interpretation of 

the Guidelines de novo and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case 

for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record reflects that, at Tello’s request, the district court 

considered his culpability relative to three other participants in the offense. Tello 

did not ask the court to consider the culpability of additional possible participants, 

and in the absence of such a request or any evidence of the existence of additional 

participants, the court was not required to do so. See United States v. RojasMillan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should consider the 

involvement of “other likely actors” if it finds “sufficient evidence of their 

existence and participation in the overall scheme”). 

Moreover, the court did not refuse to consider the individual identified as 

“El Campo,” but rather concluded that this individual was not an “average 

participant” to whom Tello should be compared. See United States v. Hurtado, 

760 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The requisite comparison is to average 

participants, not above-average participants.”), overruled on other grounds by 

Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d at 1174. 

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the 

factors enumerated in the amended commentary to section 3B1.2 and concluded 
3 16-50383 

that, in light of the facts of this case, Tello failed to meet the standard for a minor 

role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000798954
<NAME>                        ENEX OIL & GAS INCOME PROGRAM II-9, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4173
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12465
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20255
<PP&E>                                         1503392
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1099663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139840
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     284144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   423984
<SALES>                                        160528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160528
<CGS>                                          118765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               24505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (50)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   17208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>