alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-Q

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:

Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may
be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certifies that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Thomas T. McEntireName:

Thomas T. McEntireTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 6, 2009
#### Davis *v.*Davis *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department*

July 18, 1890.)

Partnership—Dissolution—Custody of Books.

On the dissolution of a partnership between plaintiff and his father, it was agreed that the latter should retain the books of the firm, collect the accounts, and pay its *898debts. Subsequently plaintiff made a general assignment to his father for the benefit of creditors. On the death of the father, plaintiff brought suit against the next of kin and executors, to recover possession of the books. *Beld,*that an order made therein, giving plaintiff the absolute and unrestricted custody of the books, should be modified so as to have them placed in the custody of some person, where both parties could have access to them.

Appeal from special term, Westchester county.

Action by Benjamin T. Davis against Jemima S. Davis, individually, Bebecca D. McKay, and Jemima S. Dávis, and William W. Ambler as executors of Gilbert T. Davis, to recover possession of the books of account of the late firm of Davis & Co., composed of plaintiff and his father, said Gilbert T. • Davis. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent, and it was agreed that deceased should retain the books, collect the accounts, and pay the debts of the firm. Subsequently plaintiff made a general assignment to his father for the payment of debts. The court made an order directing defendants to deliver possession of the books to plaintiff, and they now appeal therefrom.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Henry C. Griffin,*for appellant. *Edward T. Lovatt,*for respondent.

Pratt, J.

It is very doubtful if the plaintiff has any right, title, or interest in the books in question. In any view, however, he ought not to have the absolute and unrestricted custody of them. As matter of law, the interest in the accounts passed toG. T. Davis in his'life-time, in trust to pay debts, and the plaintiff only retained an equitable interest therein. We think it was proper to give the plaintiff access to the books; at the same time,'also, the defendant should have been allowed to have the books where they could be used in furtherance of the trust, and in settlement of the estate of G. T. Davis, deceased. The order should be so modified as to have them placed in the custody of some officer or person where both parties can have access to them at all reasonable times. Ko costs to either party. All concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Prodigy Communications Corporation (formerly Prodigy, Inc.) on Forms S-8
(File Nos. 333-72179, 333-72181, 333-72183) of our report, dated March 10, 1999,
on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Prodigy Communications
Corporation at December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the years ended December 31,
1998, 1997 and 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 
10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York

March 31, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Glenn Miller, Also Known as Glen Miller, Appellant.

*600The hearing court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, inasmuch as the People announced their readiness to proceed to trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action *(see,*CPL 30.30 [1] [a]; *see also, People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, we find that the testimony of the police officers at the hearing was not incredible as a matter of law *(cf. People v Africk,*107 AD2d 700; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86), and that the hearing court properly denied the motion to suppress the gun and the two statements made by the defendant to the police.

We have examined the remainder of the defendant’s contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**** 

**STATEMENT OF**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**** 

 

I, Davinder Sethi, certify that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

                The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 of Entrada Networks, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 of Entrada Networks, Inc. fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Entrada Networks, Inc. 

 

_/s/ Davinder Sethi  ___

Name: Davinder Sethi, Ph.D.

Principal Financial Officer    

Date: September 14, 2004
#### People *v.*Clegg.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Indictment—Allegations and Proof—Amendment.

On the trial of an indictment for libel, which omits, by mistake, three words of the published libel, which is set out in the indictment, the indictment may be amended by the insertion of the words to conform to the proof, under Code Grim. Proc. § 293, providing that the court may, in its judgment, allow such amendment, if the defendant cannot be prejudiced in his defense on the merits thereby.

Appeal from court of sessions, Richmond county.

Conviction of D. W. Clegg of the crime of libel, published against Philip Wolf. Defendant appeals. Code Grim. Proc. 1ST. Y. § 293, provides that, upon the trial of an indictment, if there is a variance between the allegation and the proof as to time, or in the name or description of any place, person, or thing, the court may, in its judgment, if the defendant cannot be prejudiced in his defense on the merits, allow the indictment to be amended.

. Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt and Dykman, JJ.

*Thos. W. Fitzgerald,*Dist. Atty., for the People.

Pratt, J.

The defendant was convicted, at a court of sessions held in Richmond county, of the crime of libel, under section 242 of the Penal Code. The libel consisted of a circular printed and circulated, of which the following: is a copy;

> “$50.00.

> “Ninety days after date, I promise to pay Charles Schmeiser the sum of fifty dollars, or order, for value received.

> *“Dated Southfield, March*30,1860.

> Philip Wolff.

> “Witness: Thomas Garrett.”

> “This much of a wealthy man who, then poor, now has pride in vilifying one or more of his tenants, without mercy, to add to his wealth. «Note not. paid.’

> *“Nov.*1887.

> A Victim.”

> “•a victim.’ '

> “My dear Philip Wolff, (police commissioner,) permit meta inform you that the original of said above.copied note, neatly framed and adorned, (you too, no doubt, will be permitted to see it,) can be seen at the Widow Schmeiser’s Hall, corner of Wright and Water streets, Stapleton, Staten Island.

> “How about truth *vs.*vilification.”

The circular was clearly libelous in its terms, and it apppeared fairly from the evidence that it was false, and published in malice. The evidence fully justified the verdict. So that, unless some error was committed upon the trial, the judgment must stand. The court allowed the district attorney to amend the indicement, upon notice, by inserting the words, “Note not paid;” and the defendant claims to have been prejudiced thereby. These words were a part of the published libel that had been accidentally omitted. As soon as the article was put in evidence, these words were necessarily shown as a part of the case. The defendant could not have been surprised or misled, as these words were a part of the libel, and by inserting them the indictment was made to conform to the proof. Such an amendment was authorized by section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in no way prejudiced the defendant. We have examined all the exceptions, and find none of sufficient importance to demand discussion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                       Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries
                                      of
                       Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc.
                 (and states of incorporation or organization)

Direct Subsidiary of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc.
     Wilsons Center, Inc.  (Minnesota)

Direct Subsidiary of Wilsons Center, Inc.:
     Rosedale Wilsons, Inc.  (Minnesota)

Direct Subsidiary of Rosedale Wilsons, Inc.:
     River Hills Wilsons, Inc.  (Minnesota)

Direct Subsidiaries of River Hills Wilsons, Inc.:
     Wilsons Leather of Alabama, Inc.  (Alabama)
     Wilsons Leather of Arkansas, Inc.  (Arkansas)
     Wilsons Leather of Connecticut, Inc.  (Connecticut)
     Wilsons Leather of Delaware, Inc.  (Delaware)
     Wilsons Leather of Florida, Inc.  (Florida)
     Wilsons Leather of Georgia, Inc.  (Georgia)
     Wilsons Leather of Indiana, Inc.  (Indiana)
     Wilsons Leather of Iowa, Inc.  (Iowa)
     Wilsons Leather of Louisiana, Inc.  (Louisiana)
     Wilsons Leather of Maryland, Inc.  (Maryland)
     Wilsons Leather of Massachusetts, Inc.  (Massachusetts)
     Wilsons Leather of Michigan, Inc.  (Michigan)
     Wilsons Leather of Mississippi, Inc.  Mississippi)
     Wilsons Leather of Missouri, Inc.  (Missouri)
     Wilsons Leather of New Jersey, Inc.  (New Jersey)
     Wilsons Leather of New York, Inc.  (New York)
     Wilsons Leather of North Carolina, Inc.  (North Carolina)
     Wilsons Leather of Ohio, Inc.  (Ohio)
     Wilsons Leather of Pennsylvania, Inc.  (Pennsylvania)
     Wilsons Leather of Rhode Island, Inc.  (Rhode Island)
     Wilsons Leather of South Carolina, Inc.  (South Carolina)
     Wilsons Leather of Tennessee, Inc.  (Tennessee)
     Wilsons Leather of Texas, Inc.  (Texas)
     Wilsons Leather of Vermont, Inc.  (Vermont)
     Wilsons Leather of Virginia, Inc.  (Virginia)
     Wilsons Leather of West Virginia, Inc.  (West Virginia)
     Wilsons Leather of Wisconsin, Inc.  (Wisconsin)
     Bermans the Leather Experts Inc.  (Delaware)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

     Wilsons Leather Holdings Inc.  (Minnesota)
     Wilsons International Inc.  (Minnesota)
     Wilsons (UK) Limited  (United Kingdom)

Direct Subsidiaries of Wilsons International Inc.:
     Wilsons Leather of Canada Ltd.  (Minnesota)
     Wilsons Leather of Hong Kong Ltd. (Hong Kong)
 
Direct Subsidiaries of Wilsons (UK) Limited:
     Wilsons Leather Gatsland Limited  (United Kingdom)
     Wilsons Leather Gatsair Limited  (United Kingdom)

Direct Subsidiary of Wilsons Leather of Delaware Inc.:
     Wilsons Leather of Airports Inc.  (Delaware)

Direct Subsidiaries of Wilsons Leather of Airports Inc.:
     Chicago O'Hare Leather Concessions Joint Venture  (Delaware)
     Houston Airport Leather Concessions, LLC  (Delaware)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1357

CALVIN TYRONE NORTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COLUMBUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, a government 

body politic and corporate; ALGERNON MCKENZIE, in individual and his 

official capacity as Director for Columbus County Social Services; DAVID S. 

TEDDER, in his individual and his official capacity as attorney for Columbus 

County Department of Social Services; KIMBERLY WILLIAMS, in her individual 

and her official capacity as Child Support Enforcement Supervisor for Columbus 

County Department of Social Services; CHALISSE NEELEY, in her individual 

and her official capacity as Child Support Establishment Supervisor for Columbus 

County Department of Social Services; JIMMY HAYNES, in his individual and 

official capacity as Child Support Enforcement for Columbus County Department 

of Social Services; KELLY BATTEN, in her individual and official capacity as 

Child Support Enforcement for Columbus County Department of Social Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:17-cv-00171-BR)

Submitted: August 14, 2018 Decided: September 5, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Calvin Tyrone Norton, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE BOND 

DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Tyrone Norton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action 

as barred by the Rooker-Feldman∗ doctrine. We have reviewed the record and find no 

error in the district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 

Norton’s action. See Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty., Md., 827 F.3d 

314, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2016); Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 719 (4th Cir. 

2006). However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be one without 

prejudice. S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, 

LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s 

order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and affirm as modified for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Norton v. Columbus Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

No. 7:17-cv-00171-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2018); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). 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

 ∗ Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. 

Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1555

NJOLI ROGER BOSUNG, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-201-448) Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: April 3, 2006 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kell Enow, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Fred B. Westfall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Njoli Roger Bosung, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Bosung contends that the Board erred in denying asylum relief on the ground that he failed to demonstrate that he filed his application within one year of the date of his arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000), even in light of the recent passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. SeeChen v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 434 F.3d 144, 150-54 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Bosung’s asylum claim. Bosung also contends that the Board erred in denying his request for withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the- 3 - record, we find that Bosung failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of his request for withholding of removal. We also find that substan tial evidence supports the finding that Bosung fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208 .16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Bosung failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                     |  |                       |  |           |  
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | --------- | -
|Subsidiaries Name                                    |  | State ofIncorporation |  | Ownership |  
|Capital Title Agency, Inc.                           |  | Arizona               |  | 100       | %
|Capital Title Building Company                       |  | Arizona               |  | 100       | %
|New Century Holding Company                          |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|New Century Title Company                            |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|NAC1031 Exchange Services, Inc.                      |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|Northwest Title Insurance Company                    |  | Arizona               |  | 100       | %
|Capital Information Services, Inc.                   |  | Arizona               |  | 100       | %
|Nations Holding Group                                |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|United Title Company                                 |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|1031 Exchangepoint, Inc.                             |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|Specific Property Inspections                        |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|AdvantageWare, Inc.                                  |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|First California Title Company                       |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|Shatto Information Systems, Inc.                     |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|Primestar Funding Corporation                        |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|United Title Agency, Inc.                            |  | Arizona               |  | 100       | %
|United Capital Title Insurance Company               |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|Land Title of Nevada, Inc.                           |  | Nevada                |  | 100       | %
|CTG Real Estate Information Services, Inc.           |  | Colorado              |  | 100       | %
|Nationwide TotalFlood Services, Inc.                 |  | California            |  | 100       | %
|Nationwide Appraisal and Title Company of Ohio, Inc. |  | Ohio                  |  | 100       | %
|Nationwide Appraisal Services Corporation            |  | Pennsylvania          |  | 100       | %
|New Century Title Holdings, Inc.                     |  | Nevada                |  | 100       | %
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

DAVID BARRETT,

No. 3:14-cv-02047-JE

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

ELIZABETH CAMPOS, SCOTT B. ALLEN,

LINDA DAVIDSON, Regional director,

RONALD K. HOOKS, 

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On December 31, 2014, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and 

Recommendation [6], recommending that David Barrett’s action should be DISMISSED for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Jelderks also recommended that 

Mr. Barrett’s IFP application [2] should be GRANTED and his motion for appointment of pro 

bono counsel [3] should be DENIED. Plaintiff filed a one-page objection [9]. 

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-02047-JE Document 10 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 2
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderk’s recommendations and I ADOPT the F&R [6] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of February, 2015. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_____ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-02047-JE Document 10 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 2
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 of Power Sports Factory, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steve Rubakh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of
operations of the Company.





/s/ Steve
      RubakhSteve RubakhChief
      Financial Officer





December    
, 2008
MAL - MALONE RESERVOIRLatitude: 42.006Longitude: -121.224Elevation: None

MAL - Malone Reservoir

Courtesy NRCS - Go to State Line Site Page...



State Line

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Site Page...



Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gerber Reservoir Site Page...



Gerber Reservoir

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crowder Flat Site Page...



Crowder Flat