alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2



Written Statement of Executive Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal
Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the Quarter Ended December 31, 2002 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) |  | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    JEFFREY E. HARTMANN

Jeffrey E. Hartmann

Executive Vice President, Finance and

Chief Financial Officer

February 12, 2003
#### Felicia A. UNDERDUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, and Ila N. Patel; Kendra Brown; Susan Lybrand, Defendants.

No. 16-1762

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 17, 2017

Decided: April 11, 2017

*347Felicia A. Underdue, Appellant Pro Se. Shalanna Lee Pirtle, Keith Michael Wed-dington, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Felicia Ann Underdue appeals the district court’s order dismissing her second amended complaint against her former employer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. We have reviewed the record and initially conclude that the district court properly dismissed Underdue’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order dismissing this claim. Underdue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:14-cv-00183-RJC, 2016 WL 3452492 (WD.N.C. June 20, 2016).

Next, the district court dismissed Un-derdue’s claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree that Under-due failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and affirm as modified to clarify that the dismissal of Underdue’s ADEA claim is without prejudice.

The district court also dismissed Under-due’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although we agree that Un-derdue did not timely file the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge that formed the basis of the complaint, the timeliness of an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional matter. See Hentosh v. Old Dominion Univ., 767 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The failure to timely file an EEOC charge ... does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, we affirm as modified to reflect that Underdue’s Title VII and ADA claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. See Ellis v. La.-Pac. Corp., 699 F.3d 778, 786 (4th Cir. 2012) (“This court is entitled to affirm the court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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 IN PART AND AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART*
#### Robert LAUTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1304

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Robert Lauter, Appellant Pro Se.

Richard J. Cromwell, MCGUIRE-WOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lauter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lauter v. GlaxoSmithKline,*No. 2:16-cv-00716-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2017). 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,926
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,028
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     28,762
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          14,672
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,728
<LOANS>                                        203,399
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,217
<DEPOSITS>                                     208,459
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,866
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,865
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 263,217
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,250
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,436
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   154
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,840
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,775
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,166
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,674
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,912
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,644
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,644
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,747
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7,724
<LOANS-NON>                                        614
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   342
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,511
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,170
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,197
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,197
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD J. COPPOLA, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED AND ADOBE INCORPORATED,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 690 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED, and the Application to QUASH is DISMISSED

.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

# AGENCY:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

# ACTION:

Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

# SUMMARY:

The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before: April 10, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email                         *CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

## Deletions

The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

### Product(s)

*NSN(s)—Product Name(s):*

MR 13047—Container, Leakproof, On-the-Go, Clear, Lunch

MR 13048—Container, Leakproof, On-the-Go, Clear, Salad

MR 13036—Herb Keeper, Green Saver, Large, 2.8 Qt

*Designated Source of Supply:*                         CINCINNATI ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED, Cincinnati, OH                    

*Contracting Activity:*                         Military Resale-Defense Commissary Agency                    

Michael R. Jurkowski,

Acting Director, Business Operations.

[FR Doc. 2022-05228 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 914 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 914

 To delineate acceptable drug testing methods, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 12 (legislative day, June 5), 1995

  Mr. Heflin (for himself and Mr. Kyl) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To delineate acceptable drug testing methods, 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. DRUG TESTING OF FEDERAL OFFENDERS.

    (a) Conditions of Probation.--Section 3563(a) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (4), as added by section 
        20414(b)(3) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
        Act of 1994, as paragraph (5);
            (2) in the undesignated matter following paragraph (5), as 
        so redesignated, by striking (4) each place it appears and 
        inserting (5); and
            (3) by inserting ``, hair, or blood'' after ``urine''.
    (b) Conditions of Supervised Release.--Section 3583(d) of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, hair, or blood'' after 
``urine''.
    (c) Conditions of Parole.--Section 1902(a) of title 42, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, hair, or blood'' after 
``urine''.
    (d) Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for Prisoners.--Section 
1902(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 3796ff-1) is amended by striking ``urinalysis or other proven 
reliable forms of testing of individuals'' and inserting ``specimen 
testing for drugs, including but not limited to urine, hair, and blood 
testing of individuals''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1997 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,623
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (556)
<INVENTORY>                                        220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,228
<PP&E>                                           4,374
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,293)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,634
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,429
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (184)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (886)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,444)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Howard S. Jonas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




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




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




Date: June 14, 2011





/s/    HOWARD S. JONASHoward S. Jonas

Chief Executive Officer





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 required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Thomas K. LAMPERT, as Trustee for the Thomas K. Lampert Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAMS MANAGEMENT, INC.; Southern Coal Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16-1744

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 27, 2017

Decided: April 11, 2017

John F. Hussell, IV, Andrew L. Ellis, John D. Wooton, Jr., WOOTON, DAVIS, HUSSELL & ELLIS, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Brian A. Glasser, Isaac R. Forman, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tams Management, Inc. and Southern Coal Corporation appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on its claims for breach of contract and breach of a guarantee agreement and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lampert v. Tams Mgmt., Inc., No. 5:15-cv-06746 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 11 & 18, 2016; June 22, 2016). 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric COLINE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-20234 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 5, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eric Coline, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Eric Coline has moved for leave to withdraw on the ground that there is no non-frivolous issue for appeal, in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s motion satisfies the requirements for *Anders*briefs. *See id.; United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Coline has filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s motion and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Coline’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. However, contrary to counsel’s assertion, the judgment contains no clerical error. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Coline’s motion for appointment of new counsel or, alternatively, for leave to proceed pro se is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). Coline’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and to place the record on appeal under seal is also DENIED.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter John JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30092

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Peter John Jefferson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence of time served and ten years of supervised release imposed following his *680guilty-plea conviction for abusive sexual contact with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 2244(a)(3). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jefferson’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Jefferson the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering ■brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motions to file late supplemental excerpts of record and to withdraw are GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the supplemental excerpts of record submitted at Dockeji Entry No. 11.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Dipple *v.*Pittsburgh, Appellant.

Argued March 26, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*J. Howard Devlin,*Assistant City Solicitor, with him *Anne X. Alpern,*City Solicitor, and *J. Frank McKenna,*Assistant City Solicitor, for appellant.

*Allen H. Berkman,*for appellee.

April 13, 1953:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appeal in this case was not taken within three calendar months, as prescribed by statute, after the *308order of the court below was entered. Therefore, lacking jurisdiction, we are obliged to quash the appeal of our own motion, which we do the less reluctantly because of the satisfactory disposition by Judge Marshall, speaking for the court en banc, of the questions submitted to the court in the case stated.

Appeal quashed.
#### Thomas Earl JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILBERT BURIAL VAULT INC; Boyd C. Anderson; Stephen M. Young, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1162

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

*771Thomas Earl Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Vernon F. Dunbar, McANGUS, GOUDE-LOCK *&*COURIE, LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Earl Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action seeking recovery under a profit sharing retirement plan administered by his former employer, Wilbert Burial Vault, Inc. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Jones v. Wilbert Burial Vault Inc.,*No. 6:15-cv-03408-TMC (D.S.C. Jan. 6, 2017). In light of this disposition, we deny the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal. 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*