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 Amended Quarterly Report of Optical Cable Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of January 31, 2007, and for the period
then ended.



|                         |  |  |  |                                           
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: September 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Tracy G. Smith                        
|                         |  |  |  | Tracy G. Smith                            
|                         |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### SPEIR v. LITTLE.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Action by S. Fleet Speir against Frank Little. Niles & Johnson

(Wm. W. Niles, of counsel), for appellant.

Walter C. Low (Albert E. Lamb, of counsel), for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action is for an accounting. Both parties to the suit are physicians, and the defendant went into the service of the plaintiff in May, 1883, under an agreement to aid the plaintiff in his practice. The first agreement was in writing, and prescribed the salary of the defendant, and provided for his disbursements; but that agreement was modified at different times. The complaint charged the defendant with attending to patients outside of his practice and retaining the money received therefor in violation of his agreement. The answer of the defendant to that charge was that such practice, and the retention of the money received therefor, was in pursuance of an agreement with the plaintiff. Upon that issue the parties went to trial, and it was decided against the plaintiff. The defendant supported his position by his own testimony, and by evidence of other witnesses, and by many corroborative circumstances. The plaintiff, in his testimony, confirms much of the defendant’s evidence, and the statements rendered by the latter to the firm, and his acquiescence in them, is quite corroborative of the theory of the defendant. In a case like this, involving questions of fact only, where the testimony is plain, it is seldom necessary to recapitulate or analyze the evidence. The referee has made full findings, and we find, upon a careful examination of the case, that they are well sustained by the proof. Judgment should be affirmed, with costs. BROWN, P. J., concurs. PRATT, J., not voting.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00216-CR

LUZALBERT HERNANDEZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-05-29349-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 3, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1879 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1879

To provide for the permanent extension of income averaging for farmers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 1998

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the permanent extension of income averaging for farmers.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INCOME AVERAGING FOR FARMERS.

    Section 933(c) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is amended by 
striking ``and before January 1, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 9, 2010 

# Order

November 9, 2010

137451 (91)(92)

MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 137451 v COA: 280792 Ingham CC: 06-001537-AA SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ___________________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, motions by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Michigan Sate AFL-CIO and others for leave to file briefs amicus curiae in this

case are considered an d they are GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 12.1
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in thousands, except ratios)
 Year Ended December 31,2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009(Restated)Net loss before income taxes
    
    
    ($14,394
    )
    
    
    ($27,674
    )
    
    
    ($22,889
    )
    
    
    ($18,858
    )
    
    
    ($6,025
    )Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    801
    
    
    
    2,579
    
    
    
    2,780
    
    
    
    3,178
    
    
    
    2,974Total earnings (loss)
    
    
    ($13,593
    )
    
    
    ($25,095
    )
    
    
    ($20,109
    )
    
    
    ($15,680
    )
    
    
    ($3,051
    )Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    661
    
    
    $
    2,394
    
    
    $
    2,542
    
    
    $
    2,923
    
    
    $
    2,723Estimated rent interest expense
    
    
    140
    
    
    
    185
    
    
    
    238
    
    
    
    255
    
    
    
    251Total fixed charges
    
    $
    801
    
    
    $
    2,579
    
    
    $
    2,780
    
    
    $
    3,178
    
    
    $
    2,974Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Deficiency of earnings available
to cover fixed charges
    
    
    ($14,394
    )
    
    
    ($27,674
    )
    
    
    ($22,889
    )
    
    
    ($18,858
    )
    
    
    ($6,025
    )
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1861 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1861

 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit duty-free sales enterprises 
                    to be located in certain areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 1998

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit duty-free sales enterprises 
                    to be located in certain areas.

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

SECTION 1. DUTY-FREE SALES ENTERPRISES.

    Section 555(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1555(b)(2)) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
        and inserting ``; or'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) the customs territory, if reasonable 
                assurance can be provided that the purchaser of the 
                duty-free merchandise will depart from an international 
                airport located within the customs territory.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
and
 Rules
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
 I, Daniel
A. Ninivaggi, President of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the general partner
of Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. (the “Registrant”), certify that, to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P.
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of the
Registrant (the “Report”):
  (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.
  /s/  Daniel
      A. NinivaggiDaniel
      A. NinivaggiPresident
      of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the general partner of Icahn Enterprises
      Holdings L.P.
 
 Date:
August 13, 2010
KYLE A. STURM, Oregon State Bar ID Number 080214 

Internet E-mail address: ksturm@balljanik.com

BALL JANIK LLP

101 Southwest Main Street, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204-3219

Telephone: (503) 228-2525

Facsimile: (503) 295-1058

Attorneys for Plaintiff Banette Properties, LLC

WILLIAM G. EARLE, Oregon State Bar ID Number 831859

Internet E-mail address: wearle@davisrothwell.com

CHRISTOPHER M. PARKER, Oregon State Bar ID Number 104776

Internet E-mail address: cparker@davisrothwell.com

DAVIS ROTHWELL EARLE & XO ́ CHIHUA P.C.

200 Southwest Market Street, Suite 1800

Portland, Oregon 97201-5745

Telephone: (503) 222-4422

Facsimile: (503) 222-4428

Attorneys for Defendant AMCO Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

BANETTE PROPERTIES, LLC, an Oregon

limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign

company,

Defendant.

No. 3:15-cv-01344-PK

STIPULATED MOTION FOR

DISMISSAL

Page 1 - STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

L:\58\JEFE, INC\Pld\Stipulated Motion for Dismissal.wpd

DAVIS ROTHWELL

EARLE & XO ́ CHIHUA P.C.

200 Southwest Market Street, Suite 1800

Portland, Oregon 97201-5745

Telephone (503) 222-4422 • Facsimile (503) 222-4428

Case 3:15-cv-01344-PK Document 21 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 2
COME NOW counsel for plaintiff Banette Properties, LLC, and defendant

AMCO Insurance Company and, having advised the Court that the underlying case has settled,

hereby moves the Court for an order dismissing this case, with prejudice and without costs to

either party, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41-1(c). 

DATED this sixth day of July 2016.

BALL JANIK LLP

By s/ Kyle A. Sturm* 

KYLE A. STURM, OSB # 080214

(503) 228-2525

Attorneys for Plaintiff Banette Properties, LLC

DAVIS ROTHWELL EARLE & XÓCHIHUA P.C.

By s/ William G. Earle 

WILLIAM G. EARLE, OSB # 831859

CHRISTOPHER M. PARKER, OSB #104776

(503) 222-4422

Attorneys for Defendant AMCO Insurance Company

* = Denotes signed by authorization pursuant to LR 11-1(d)(2).

Page 2 - STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

L:\58\JEFE, INC\Pld\Stipulated Motion for Dismissal.wpd

DAVIS ROTHWELL

EARLE & XO ́ CHIHUA P.C.

200 Southwest Market Street, Suite 1800

Portland, Oregon 97201-5745

Telephone (503) 222-4422 • Facsimile (503) 222-4428

Case 3:15-cv-01344-PK Document 21 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 2
#### McQUEEN v. BROWN.

(City Court of New York,

General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

Trial—Taking Case from Jury.

Testimony of defendant, corroborated by that of his son, does not overcome the contradictory testimony of plaintiff to such an extent as to entitle him to a dismissal on the merits or the direction of a verdict in his favor.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by John McQueen against John Brown for work and labor. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial, made on the minutes, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and SCHUCHMAN, J.

Bobt. H. Bacey, for appellant.

J. Baldwin Hands, for respondent.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

This cause was tried without an objection or exception by either plaintiff or defendant, except that defendant had noted an exception to the denial of his motion on the minutes for a new trial. The defendant did not move for a nonsuit, nor for a dismissal on the merits, nor did he request the direction of a verdict in his favor. The action was for a balance for work and labor per- . formed by plaintiff in and about a building belonging to defendant,—the plaintiff testifying in support of his contention that the work was done as alleged, and that the balance was due and unpaid; while the defendant testified that there was a fixed price for part of the work, and that he had paid such price, and a further sum for the reasonable value of the other work, and he was corroborated by his 15 year old son. This conflicting evidence on the main issue had to be submitted to the jury, and it would have been error for the judge to have taken the case from the jury, even if defendant had properly requested a dismissal or verdict in his favor, and the motion for new trial was properly denied.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Justin A. and Others, Infants. Jesus A., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 347]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent father neglected two of the subject children and derivatively neglected the third child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that the father neglected the children Andrew and Yelissa was supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; § 1046). The record shows that the father failed to make sure that the children were properly fed, which led to a diagnosis of failure to thrive. The father also failed to provide the children with proper medical treatment for the condition *(see Matter of Joshua Hezekiah B. [Edgar B.],*77 AD3d 441 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 716 [2010]). Moreover, the father unreasonably allowed the mother to be solely responsible for tending to the children’s complex medical needs, although a previous finding of neglect had been entered against her for failing to properly administer prescribed medication to Andrew. The fact that Andrew gained a significant amount of weight when he was hospitalized for treatment of injuries he accidentally sustained clearly indicated that he was not receiving proper nourishment at home *(see Matter of Kayla C.,*19 AD3d 692 [2005]).

The acts committed by the father demonstrate an impairment of judgment sufficient to support the derivative finding of neglect as to the third child, Justin *(see e.g. Matter of Brianna R. [Marisol*G.], 78 AD3d 437 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 702 [2011]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions, and find then unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              35
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      909
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         41
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,381
<PP&E>                                           5,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,367
<BONDS>                                          1,082
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        300
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,563
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,117
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    203
<INCOME-TAX>                                        73
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                130
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       130
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the Consolidated Financial Statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3194

___________ Oren Goble, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Continental Casualty Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 28, 2001 Filed: April 3, 2001

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. OrenGoble was the chief executive officer of Win Vent, Inc., which maintained agroup long-term disability policy issued by Continental Casualty Company. In April 1993, Goble suffered a stroke, and in June 1993, Win Vent, Inc. closed. Goble sought long-term disability benefits in February 1998, and Continental Casualty denied the cla im as untimely. Goble filed a lawsuit seeking disability benefits, and the district court granted summary judgment to Continental Casualty, concluding Goble's claim was untimely and the delay prejudiced Continental Casualty. Goble appeals arguing the district court committed error in finding prejudice. We disagree. The district court* The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. -2- correctly found on undisputed facts that the delay prejudiced Continental Casualty. Besides, the lawsuit was filed too late under the policy provision stating, "No action can be brought after 3 years from the date written proof is required." We thus affirm the district court. * A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

JAMES E. ROSS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:14-cv-00113-JAD-CWH

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________) 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#11), filed February 12,

2014. Plaintiff requests that the Court strike his first amended complaint. Because the amended

complaint has already been denied without prejudice, this request is moot. Plaintiff’s amended

complaint (#10) has been received and will be screened by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1915(e). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#11) is denied as moot.

DATED: February 13, 2014. 

 

___________________________________

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 6:14-cv-01235-TC Document 12 Filed 02/13/14 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.4







CHAPARRAL ENERGY, INC. 
2020 KEY EXECUTIVE RETENTION PLAN
AWARD NOTICE


Chaparral Energy, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to the Chaparral Energy, Inc. 2020 Key Executive Retention Plan (as may be amended, the “Plan”), hereby grants to the Participant named below a retention payment (the “Retention Payment”) in the amount set forth below (the “Award”).  The Award is subject to all of the terms and conditions as set forth in this Award Notice (this “Notice”) and the Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein in its entirety.  Except as otherwise indicated, any capitalized term used but not defined shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Plan.  
	
		
	Participant:
	 

	Payment Date:
	 

	Amount of Retention Payment:
	$






Acceptance, Acknowledgment and Receipt    


By accepting the Award, the Participant hereby: 


		
	•
	acknowledges receipt of, and represents that the Participant understands, this Notice and the Plan; and




		
	•
	acknowledges and agrees that this Notice and the Plan set forth the entire understanding between the Participant and the Company regarding this Award and supersede all prior oral or written agreements, promises and/or representations on that subject.




	
		
	CHAPARRAL ENERGY, INC.

	By:
	 

	 
	Name:   Charles Duginski

	 
	Title:   Chief Executive Officer




AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
PARTICIPANT
By:         
    Name:
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2002

To modify the marking of certain silk products and their containers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 29, 1998

Mr. BREAUX (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To modify the marking of certain silk products and their

containers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MARKING OF CERTAIN SILK PRODUCTS AND

4 THEIR CONTAINERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304 of the Tariff Act of

6 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating subsections (h), (i), (j),

8 and (k) as subsections (i), (j), (k), and (l), respec9 tively; and

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the follow11 ing new subsection:
2

•S 2002 IS

1 ‘‘(h) MARKING OF CERTAIN SILK PRODUCTS.—The

2 marking requirements of subsections (a) and (b) shall not

3 apply to—

4 ‘‘(1) articles provided for in subheading

5 6214.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

6 the United States, as in effect on January 1, 1997,

7 which contain 70 percent or more by weight of silk

8 or silk waste; or

9 ‘‘(2) goods provided for in heading 5007 of the

10 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, as

11 in effect on January 1, 1997.’’.

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 304(j) of

13 such Act, as redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended

14 by striking ‘‘subsection (h)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection

15 (i)’’.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 this section apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from

18 warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of enact19 ment of this Act.

Æ