alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/ Jerry C. YoungJerry C. YoungChief Financial OfficerNovember 1, 2005




23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
  The schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,677,449
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,549,273
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             1,315,774
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 41,843,168
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      95,473,528
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        94,782,843
<LOANS>                                    250,588,925
<ALLOWANCE>                                    816,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             407,800,094
<DEPOSITS>                                 325,973,731
<SHORT-TERM>                                18,711,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          5,346,853
<LONG-TERM>                                 31,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,686
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,754,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             407,800,094
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,748,011
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,453,013
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,201,024
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,608,399
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,384,133
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,816,891
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   45,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             106,705
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,529,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,003,544
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     647,844
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   647,844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.85
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,004,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    77,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               967,360
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  199,301
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,356
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              816,415
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           140,385
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        676,030
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES ) 

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) CASE NO. 1:01-cv-116 

v. ) 

 ) Judge Sandra S. Beckwith 

STEPHEN G. DONAHUE and ) 

DONAHUE SECURITIES, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 3, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Motion to Reinstate Case to Active Docket with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system which will send notification of such to the following individuals: 

Richard Boydston, Esq. 

Counsel for the Receiver 

Greenbaum Doll & McDonald, PLL 

2800 Chemed Center 

255 East Fifth Street 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

rb2@gdm.com 

Gerald L. Baldwin, Esq. 

Counsel for SIPC 

Frost Brown Todd 

2500 PNC Center 

201 E. Fifth Street 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

gbaldwin@fbtlaw.com 

Glenn V. Whitaker 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease 

Atrium Two 

221 E. Fourth Street, Suite 2100 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 

gvwhitaker@vssp.com 

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 108 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 1 of 2
J. Michael Debbeler, Esq. 

Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP 

1900 Fifth Third Center 

511 Walnut Street 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

mdebbeler@graydon.com 

Donald J. Rafferty, Esq. 

Cohen Todd Kite & Stanford, LLC 

250 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1200 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

drafferty@ctks.com 

s/Anne C. McKinley 

 Anne C. McKinley, IL Bar No. 6270252 

 One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

 175 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 900 

 Chicago, Illinois 60604 

 Telephone: (312) 353-7390 

 Facsimile: (312) 353-7398 

 mckinleya@sec.gov 

Dated: August 3, 2005 

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 108 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 2 of 2
Case: 1:18-mj-00282-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 04/25/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 1:18-mj-00282-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 04/25/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 1:18-mj-00282-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 04/25/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 1:18-mj-00282-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 04/25/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 18
Case: 1:18-mj-00282-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 04/25/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 1:18-mj-00282-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 04/25/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 1:18-mj-00282-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 04/25/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HOUSTON BYRD, 

 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:18-cv-950 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

v. Magistrate Judge Jolson 

MAUREEN O’CONNOR, Chief Justice, 

Supreme Court of Ohio, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Perjury and Censor, Removal 

and Sanction of Said Judge and Motion for Violation of a Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants. 

(Docs. 24 and 25). Plaintiff continues to argue that his case was wrongfully dismissed and asks 

the Court to reconsider the Opinion and Order dismissing the case and the final judgment entered 

against Plaintiff on November 8, 2018. (Docs. 18 and 19). 

 A motion for reconsideration is the opportunity for the court to “rectify its own mistakes 

in the period immediately following the entry to judgment,” not an opportunity for the Plaintiff 

to re-litigate issues previously considered. White v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 

(1982); Macdermid Inc. v. Electrochemicals Inc., Nos. 96-3995, 96-4072, 142 F.3d 435 (Table), 

1998 WL 165137, at *6 n. 7 (6th Cir. 1998). There are limited situations in which a court will 

grant a motion for reconsideration, such as “when there is (1) an intervening change of 

controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent 

manifest injustice.”  Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov’t v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381,389 
2 

(6th Cir. 2009). The Court will only reconsider a prior motion under limited circumstances and 

Plaintiff has not made any allegations that fall within the aforementioned categories. Further, 

Plaintiff’s Motion is not substantiated or supported by any relevant law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Perjury and Censor and for Violation of a Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants are 

DENIED. 

Any other requests by Plaintiff not specifically addressed in this Opinion and Order are 

DENIED AS MOOT as this matter has been fully considered and final judgment has been 

entered. There is no basis for further review. 

 The Clerk shall remove Documents 24 and 25 from the Court’s pending motions list and 

this case shall remain closed. The Court further orders that no additional motions or other 

requests for relief shall be filed in this case as this matter is closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/ George C. Smith 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### Manuel E. NALL *v.*Mrs. Virgie C. McDONALD

5-4403

420 S. W. 2d 827

Opinion delivered December 4, 1967

*John L. Hughes*and *Ben McCray,*for appellant.

*James C. Cole*and *Bridges, Young & Mathews,*for appellee.

Conley Bybd, Justice.

Appellant, Manuel E. Nall, appeals from a directed verdict in favor of Mrs. Virgie C. McDonald. The issue is whether- there is any substantial evidence to show that Mrs. McDonald was the driver of the automobile that collided head-on with appellant’s automobile on his side of the road.

Two witnesses, Jesse Jones and Chester Newman Williams, in addition to Nall himself, testified on behalf of appellant. Nall testified that on his way out of Sheridan, as he crested a hill, he saw a farm tractor pulling piggy-hack another farm tractor, headed in the opposite direction; that the tractors had two wheels on and two *678off the pavement; and that just as he passed the tractors he saw an automobile, following the tractor, cross to his side of the road. Since he was knocked unconscious, he does not remember anything else that happened at the scene of the accident.

Chester Newman Williams testified that he was driving, one tractor and pulling piggy-back the other tractor; that he did not see the collision but heard the impact; and that after parking the tractors he went back to the scene of the accident and found Mr. Nall still in his car and the McDonalds lying side by side in a ditch.

Jesse Jones, a member of the State Police, deter7 mined that the McDonald car was traveling behind the tractors; that following the McDonald car were two other vehicles — one being driven by Philander Green and the other being driven by Anderson Thomas; and that according to the debris and physical damages, the Thomas car collided with the Green car, the Green car collided with the McDonald car, and the McDonald car careened across the road into the path of Nall’s vehicle.

It will be observed that no witness identfied Mrs. Virgie C. McDonald as being either the owner or the drivei; of any of the vehicles involved in the collisions. Under these' circumstances we hold that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of Mrs. McDonald.

Affirmed.
*

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, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60703

Summary Calendar

 

LOUIS DAVIS, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; BEARRY, Doctor,

Medical Director, in his private, individual and 

official capacities; CABE, Doctor, Medical Doctor,

in his private, individual and official capacities;

SANTOS, Doctor, Medical Doctor, in his private, 

individual and official capacities,

 DefendantsAppellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:04-CV-151-D-B

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

Before WIENER, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Davis, Jr., Mississippi prisoner # 16425, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of

his civil rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. Davis argues
 

-2-

that the defendants were deliberatelyindifferent to hismedicalneeds and provided inadequatemedical

care. We affirm.

According to the complaint, Davis was examined for a foot condition by several doctors, who

gave him different diagnoses and prescribed various pain medications and antibiotics. Doctors also

x-rayed his foot. Davis complains that he was not permitted to see a foot specialist at a hospital

outside the priso n. We conclude that Davis’s complaints about his medical care and the lack of

further opinions from specialists do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-07 (1976); Domino v. Texas Dep't of CriminalJustice, 239 F.3d 752, 756

(5thCir. 2001);Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5thCir. 1985). At most, Davis’s allegations

amount to claimsfor medicalmalpractice, which isinsufficient for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

 AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,008
<SECURITIES>                                    27,810
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                       883
<INVENTORY>                                        376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,158
<PP&E>                                           7,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,734
<SALES>                                         11,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,579
<CGS>                                            1,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (135)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    711
<INCOME-TAX>                                       213
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                498
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       498
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.05
        

</TABLE>
Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 193-2 Filed: 09/15/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1422 Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 05/28/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1329
Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 193-2 Filed: 09/15/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 1423 Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 05/28/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 1330
Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 193-2 Filed: 09/15/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 1424 Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 05/28/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 1331
Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 193-2 Filed: 09/15/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 1425 Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 05/28/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 1332
Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 193-2 Filed: 09/15/21 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 1426 Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 05/28/21 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 1333
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

WCR, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-278

Consolidated with 3:20-cv-143

vs.

WESTERN CANADA HEAT 

EXCHANGER, LTD., et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEFER A RULING ON 

JURISDICTION (DOC. 31); (2) CONFIRMING THAT THE VIDEO HEARING ON 

JURISDICTION WILL GO FORWARD ON MARCH 3, 2021 AT 10:15 A.M.

______________________________________________________________________________

This is a civil case for which Defendants filed a motion to dismiss -- challenging personal 

jurisdiction over Defendants Western Canada Heat Exchanger (“Canada Heat”) and Earl 

Strohschein -- on July 15, 2020. Doc. 15. Following the transfer of this case from Judge Rose, the 

undersigned scheduled a hearing on the motion. The hearing is to occur tomorrow, March 3, 2021 

at 10:15 a.m. In the interim, the parties were directed to engage in discovery with regard to the 

jurisdictional issue, and did so. 

Yesterday, Defendants filed a notice indicating that they were withdrawing their motion to 

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) as it pertains to personal jurisdiction over Canada Heat, but 

maintaining that motion to dismiss asto personal jurisdiction over Strohschein. Doc. 30. Therefore, 

the issue before the Court is whether personal jurisdiction exists over Strohschein. Today, Plaintiff 

filed a motion to defer a determination of personal jurisdiction over Strohschein until the trial on 

the merits. Doc. 31. Subsequently, Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition. Doc. 32. Oral 

Case: 3:18-cv-00278-MJN-SLO Doc #: 53 Filed: 03/02/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 552
argument on these two requests was held on March 2, 2021. Having heard from counsel for both 

sides, and reviewing the briefing on the motion, the Court finds it appropriate to hold the hearing 

on March 3, 2021 and limit the issue at the hearing to whether jurisdiction exists over Strohschein. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to defer a determination of personal jurisdiction over Strohschein 

until the trial on the merits is DENIED, and the hearing on March 3, 2021 will for forward as 

scheduled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 2, 2021 s/Michael J. Newman

Hon. Michael J. Newman

United States District Judge

Case: 3:18-cv-00278-MJN-SLO Doc #: 53 Filed: 03/02/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 553
#### Herbert Ray TROGLIN *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 74-161

519 S.W. 2d 740

Opinion delivered February 24, 1975

*645
      *Don Langston,*Public Defender, for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Gary Isbell,*Asst., for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellant filed a petition pro se for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to set aside a felony plea of guilty entered in October 1952. The trial court examined its 1952 records and decided, without granting a formal hearing, that the petition had no merit. The single error advanced on appeal is that the trial court should have granted a hearing on the petition.

In his petition and supporting documents appellant contended (1) that the docket sheet was in error in reciting that he waived counsel; (2) that if the docket sheet is correct, he never voluntarily and knowingly entered such a plea; and (2) that the plea was coerced.

In the order denying the petition the trial court pointed out that the docket sheet showed that appellant had declined the offer of counsel. The court also noted the long delay of some twenty-two years between the plea and the filing of the petition and concluded that the petition was untimely; the court also concluded that the petition and supporting documents “were ineffective to accomplish the purposes intended.” We perceive the recited defect in the documents to refer to the fact that they stated bare conclusions.

We hold that the court’s refusal to grant the writ was correct because of the untimely delay and the insufficiency of the allegations. We wholeheartedly approve of the guidelines set out in *People*v. Maston, 48 Cal. Rptr. 439 (1965), *cert. denied*86 S. Ct. 917 (1966). They may be fairly paraphrased as follows:

> (1) The function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition *646if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment;

> (2) Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. The court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the petition;

> (3) Due diligence is required in making application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be denied; and,

> (4) The mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of specific facts relied upon and not merely state conslusions as to the nature of such facts.

The documents and actions of appellant substantially violate all four of the enumerated guidelines. As has been pointed out, he waited some twenty-two years to file his petition; also the filing was over eleven years after *Gideon*v. *Wainwright,*372 U.S. 335 (1963). Additionally, since statehood, we have required appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in felony cases. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1203 (Repl. 1964). Furthermore, there is no disclosure of specific facts upon which he relies — nothing but naked conclusions.

Affirmed.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

GREGORY G. WHITE, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:18-cv-289 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

NORMAN ROBINSON, Warden, 

 London Correctional Institution 

 : 

 Respondent. 

SECOND NOTICE TO PETITIONER AND ORDER ON MOTION TO 

REVIVE 

 This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Revive and Enforce 

1989 Judgment (ECF No. 12). In the body of the Motion, Mr. White represents that District Judge 

Rice entered an order on June 15, 1989, ordering the Adult Parole Authority to conduct a hearing, 

which he asserts they have not yet done. 

 In the initial Notice to Petitioner on this Motion, the Magistrate Judge listed the seven 

habeas corpus cases filed by Petitioner in this Court and noted that only one of them, White v. 

Marshall, Case No. 3:85-cv-025, had been pending in this Court in 1989, although it had a final 

judgment filed in 1991, not 1989. Having learned that there was no electronic file and that the 

original file in that case had been sent to the National Archives, the Magistrate Judge requested 

the file be returned. 

 The Magistrate Judge has now learned from the National Archives that the paper file has 

been destroyed pursuant to National Archives’ standard document retention and destruction 
2 

schedules. Thus the Court is unable to determine where that file contained the judgment Petitioner 

sought to have revived. 

 Because the Court cannot determine the existence of the judgment on which Petitioner 

relies, Petitioner’s Motion to Revive is DENIED in this case because it was not properly filed here, 

without prejudice to its renewal if Petitioner can furnish adequate evidence of its existence. As 

the Magistrate Judge has previously advised Petitioner, because District Judge Rice remains in 

active service in this Court, any request to revive the prior judgment should be addressed to Judge 

Rice under the caption of whatever case the judgment was entered in. 

November 2, 2018. 

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge