alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I CHAEL W OO DM ORE, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. ST ATE B AR CHI EF TR I AL COUN SE L, in d iv id u a l; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 55623 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 6 9 2 - UA - AG R ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A udr e yB . C ol l i ns , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an d R A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i c ha e l W oodm or e , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s r e que s tt o pr oc e e d w i thoutpr e pa y m e ntof the fi l i n g fee. W e h av e j u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e rev i ew fo r an ab u se 

# FI LED MA R 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSD S/ Res ea r ch 09- 55623 2 o f d is c r e tio n , T

ri p a t iv. Fi rst

N a t ’l B a n k & T

ru st , 82 1 F . 2d 13 68 , 13 69 (9th C i r. 1 9 8 7 ) , a n d w e a f

f i rm. T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g W o o d m o re ’s r e que s tt o pr oc e e d i n f

orm apaupe r i s be c aus e i tappe a r s f r om the f a c e of the co m p l ai n tth atth e act i o n i s H ec k- b a rr e d . See H

ec k v . H um ph re y , 512 U . S . 477, 4 8 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t a n a c tio n is n o t c o g n iz ab le u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 if “aju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f th e p la in tif

f w o u ld n e c e s s a r ilyim p lyth e in v a lid ityo f h is c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e . . . unl e s s the pl a i nt i f f c a n de m ons tr a t e tha tthe c onvi c t i on o rs e n te n c e h a s a lr e a d yb e e n in v a lid a te d ” ) ; s e e a ls o T r ip a ti , 8 2 1 F .2 d at 1 3 7 0 (“A di stri ctcourtm aydeny l ea ve t o p roce ed i n form a pauperi s a tthe ou t se ti f i tappears f r om the f a c e of the pr opos e d c om pl a i nttha tthe a c t i on i s f r i vol ous orw i thout m e r it.” ) . W oodm or e ’ s m ot i on f

orappoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l i s de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the quarterly report of Golden State Vintners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John Kelleher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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.

|/s/JOHN KELLEHERJohn Kelleher
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2003 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                        |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### MRS. M. J. M. WEIR, Individually, and MRS. M. J. M. WEIR and W. H. HOOD, Executors of the Will of JOHN H. WEIR, Deceased, v. CLIFFORD FOWLER, Sheriff of Union County, and W. H. COLLINS.

(Filed 14 November, 1928.)

Injunctions — Preliminary and Interlocutory Injunctions — Grounds Therefor.

In an action to declare a sale of land under execution of judgment void, the remedy of restraining further proceedings under the sale is by motion in the original cause, and a separate action for a restraining order is unnecessary.

Appeal by defendants from *Deal, J.,*at Chambers in Wadesboro, 7 March, 1928. From UnioN.

Civil action to enjoin the sheriff of Union County from delivering deed for certain lands to *W.*H. Collins, the last and highest bidder at an execution sale.

Upon the return of the temporary order, the same was continued to the hearing. Defendants appeal, assigning errors.

*H. B. Adams for. plaintiffs.*

*John*O. *Silces for defendants^*

*271Stacy, 0. J.

This is a companion case to *Weir v. Weir, ante,*268. Plaintiffs instituted the present action to restrain the sheriff from delivering deed for the lands sold under execution, until a hearing could be had on their motion, made in the original cause, to have said sale set aside and the same declared void. This was unnecessary, as the same relief, if needed, could have been obtained by motion in the original cause. Indeed, the granting of an order *nisi*to set aside an irregular execution, in such proceeding, operates, as soon as the parties have notice of it, to stay any further action. *Foard v. Alexander,*64 N. C., 69; *Long v. Jarrett,*94 N. C., 443.

Error.
#### JOHN S. BOUSHIAR, Also Known as NIMER BOUSHIAR ACHKAR, et al. v. CAROLINE H. WILLIS, Administratrix, et al.

(Filed 1 January, 1935.)

Injunctions D l)—

Equity will generally continue a temporary restraining order to the hearing upon a proper showing for injunctive relief when it appears that no harm can come to respondents from its continuance, and great injury might result to petitioners from its dissolution.

Appeal by defendants from *Daniels, J.,*at May Term, 1934, of CRAVEN.

Civil action to restrain execution and delivery of deed under power of sale contained in deed of trust, for an accounting, and for further relief.

Temporary injunction and order to show cause issued 3 May, 1934, returnable 16 May before Hon. F. A. Daniels at New Bern, N. 0. •

The defendants pleaded, by answer, the pendency of another action between some of the parties to the present proceeding; and upon the *512return of the sbow-ca.use order, demanded that the temporary restraining order be dissolved and the present action dismissed.

It was adjudged “that the restraining order issued herein be and the same is hereby continued until the final hearing in this cause,” from which the defendants appeal “on the ground that his Honor was in error in continuing the restraining order to the final hearing.”

*Greer & Greer and R. A. Nunn for plaintiffs.*

*D. H. Willis and Ward & Ward for defendants.-*

Stacy, C. J.

The temporary restraining order was properly continued to the hearing. *Wentz v. Land Co.,*193 N. C., 32, 135 S. E., 480.

It is the general practice of equity courts, upon proper showing for injunctive relief, to continue the temporary restraining order to the final hearing, when it appears that no harm can come to the respondents from such continuance, and great injury might result to the petitioners from a dissolution of the injunction. *Parker Co. v. Bank,*200 N. C., 441, 157 S. E., 419; *Thomason v. Swenson,*204 N. C., 759, 169 S. E., 620. “Where it will not harm the defendant to continue the injunction, and may cause great injury to the plaintiff if it is dissolved, the court generally will restrain the party until the *hearing”*— Walker, *J.,*in *Seip v. Wright,*173 N. C., 14, 91 S. E., 359.

This is the only jjoint presented by the appeal.

There is no finding that the prior action is for the same cause, and that they are substantially alike. Indeed, the two are apparently dissimilar. *Buchanan v. Milling Co.,*200 N. C., 52, 156 S. E., 140.

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 04, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 04, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0042. MICHAELE BROWN v. LAURA HUNTER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

08A8682
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET OF KMC TELECOM HOLDINGS,  INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          41,613,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,438,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (106,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,947,000
<PP&E>                                         123,949,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,309,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,743,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,918,000
<BONDS>                                        292,895,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           67,118,000
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (54,194,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,743,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,338,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,919,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,472,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,544,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (33,597,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (33,597,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (33,597,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (52.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (52.71)
        


</TABLE>
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 1071 Lower Tribunal No. CF 08

- 1111

_____________________________ R ENNY A RMSTRONG , S R

. , Appellant ,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County

. Peter F. Estrada , Judge. May 28, 2024

PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. TRAVER , C

. J. , and WOZNIAK and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Renny Armstrong, Sr., Doral, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
EXHIBIT
32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Apria
Healthcare Group Inc. (the company or Apria) on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Amin I. Khalifa, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 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/ AMIN I. KHALIFA

 Amin I. Khalifa
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 23, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Apria and will be retained by Apria and furnished to the Securities and Exhange Commission
or its staff upon request.
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**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 Annual Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely asthe Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

 
 (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 Trust. 
 
  Simmons Bank,  Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty TrustMarch 12, 2018   By /S/ LEE ANN ANDERSON   Lee Ann Anderson   Senior Vice President**
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4086 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to better 

enable plan sponsors to implement beneficial plan features. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2022 

Ms. ROSEN (for herself and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 to better enable plan sponsors to implement 

beneficial plan features. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Increasing Small Busi5 ness Retirement Choices Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds as follows: 

8 (1) Retirement plan sponsors engage advisors 

9 to assist in administering their retirement plans. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4086 IS

1 Such advisors and other service providers are paid 

2 via monthly or annual retainers to advise on plan 

3 administration or the investment fund lineup. Such 

4 retainers are charged to the retirement plan. 

5 (2) Other, incidental expenses incurred related 

6 to plan design, may not be charged to the plan be7 cause they are deemed settlor functions. For exam8 ple, if a plan sponsor were to inquire about a bene9 ficial plan design feature, such as automatic enroll10 ment and reenrollment or automatic escalation, the 

11 advisor or other service provider would bill the em12 ployer a separate amount that could not be charged 

13 back to the plan. Because these inquires result in 

14 additional costs, many employers—especially small 

15 employers—choose to forego these incidental plan 

16 design features, even when they might generate tre17 mendous benefits for their employees. 

18 (3) According to the 2021 Plan Sponsor Coun19 cil of America’s Annual Survey of Profit Sharing 

20 and 401(k) Plans, only 30.5 percent of employers 

21 with fewer than 50 workers have an automatic en22 rollment feature in their retirement plan, compared 

23 to over 77 percent of employers with more than 

24 1,000 workers. Small employers need additional re25 sources to improve their retirement plan design. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4086 IS

1 SEC. 3. FACILITATING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BENE2 FICIAL PLAN FEATURES. 

3 (a) PLAN ASSETS.—Section 403(c)(1) of the Em4 ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 

5 U.S.C. 1103(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(including 

6 incidental expenses solely for the benefit of the partici7 pants and their beneficiaries)’’ before the period. 

8 (b) FIDUCIARY STANDARD OF CARE.—Section 

9 404(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Se10 curity Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(A)(ii)) is 

11 amended by inserting ‘‘(including incidental expenses sole12 ly for the benefit of the participants and their bene13 ficiaries)’’ before the semicolon. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2487

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<Page>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                                     CONSENT

     We have issued our reports dated February 14, 2001, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Daw Technologies, Inc. and
Subsidiaries, included in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Daw
Technologies, Inc., on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2000. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the
Registration Statements of Daw Technologies, Inc., on Forms S-3 (File No.
33-73292 effective January 3, 1994, File No. 33-84224 effective March 20,
1995, File No. 33-93656 effective June 30, 1995, File No. 333-05541 effective
July 15, 1996 and File No. 333-38350 effective September, 2000) and on Forms
S-8 (File No. 33-93206 effective June 7, 1995 and File No. 333-03930
effective April 23, 1996).

                                               /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
April 5, 2002
**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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of bebe stores, inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 1, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gregory Scott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)                    TheQuarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

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

 
| Dated: May 11, 2006 | /s/ Gregory Scott         |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                     | Gregory Scott             |
|                     | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2345

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn