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

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 Most Home Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Scott Munro, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to s. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. s. 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 result of operations of the Company.

|Date:  March 24, 2003 | /s/  Scott Munro
Scott Munro
Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"Space Station Research and Technology Organization","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"engGvuYBcY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/research-technology-organization\/\">Space Station Research and Technology Organization<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/research-technology-organization\/embed\/#?secret=engGvuYBcY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Station Research and Technology Organization” — NASA\" data-secret=\"engGvuYBcY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/spacestation.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":395}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dennis Ellis,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03919-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8436 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 1
423 A.2d 1310

#### Terrain Development Co., Inc., Appellant, v. The Southland Corp.

Submitted September 15, 1978.

Marvin I. Block, for appellant; Norbert F. Bergholtz, for appellee.

Before CERCONE, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

Order of the lower court is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-28","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9VpNLEQQOg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-28\/\">STS-28<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-28\/embed\/#?secret=9VpNLEQQOg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-28” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9VpNLEQQOg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S89-29370\/S89-29370~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
**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 Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2005 (the“Report”), I, Thad M. Brown, 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: 

 

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

 

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

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version ofthis written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2070** 

DOUGLAS E. OSBORNE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

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

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv
- 00750

- CCE

- LPA )

Submitted : March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges. *

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Douglas E. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Nicole A. Crawford, Max Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

* The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).2 PER CURIAM:
Doug las E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012), dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against his
former employer for fai lure to state a claim. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 5 41 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order

Osborne seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. † Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction , and we deny as moot Osborne’s motion to compel the production of documents . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

† Because Osborne may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc. , 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Worke rs Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

– 67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Exhibit 99.2

Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant to Seciton 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Perry E. Barker, the President of Liquidics, Inc. (the "Company"), certify
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)       the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal
          quarter ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
          the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)and

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

Dated February 14, 2003

						Perry E. Barker
						---------------
						Perry E. Barker
						President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1549

DORIAN HADDOCK,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TRIBUTE PROPERTIES,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (4:09-cv-00080-FL)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorian Haddock, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Murchison, MURCHISON,

TAYLOR & GIBSON, PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dorian Haddock appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. The district court 

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 636(b)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Haddock that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Haddock has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
for the quarter ending April 4, 1998, and such is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001051260
<NAME>  GLENOIT ASSET CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                         74
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               74
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,510
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28,585
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,935
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (525)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,407
<INCOME-TAX>                                   860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.597
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.597
        


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"International Space Station Benefits for Humanity 2022 Scientific Citations","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QWCARNaH9z\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/international-space-station-benefits-for-humanity-2022-scientific-citations\/\">International Space Station Benefits for Humanity 2022 Scientific Citations<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/international-space-station-benefits-for-humanity-2022-scientific-citations\/embed\/#?secret=QWCARNaH9z\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“International Space Station Benefits for Humanity 2022 Scientific Citations” — NASA\" data-secret=\"QWCARNaH9z\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/iss066e081130_1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
ISSUED ON 1:52 pm, Dec 09, 2015 s/ Brian D. Karth, Clerk

Case 3:15-cv-08292-SRB Document 5 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6786** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RONNIE D. RAINEY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00199

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON , KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronnie D. Rainey , Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley , Jennifer P. May

- Parker , Evan Rikhye , Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CUR IAM: Ronnie D. Rainey appeals from the district court ’ s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for recons ideration of the district court’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his related motions
. The court

co nstrued the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Rainey’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 399

– 400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 531

– 32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas motion). Rainey is therefore not required to obtain a certificate of appealability t o appeal the d istrict court’ s order. See McRae , 793 F.3d at 400. I n the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Rainey’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Additionally , we construe Rainey’ s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:3 (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55(h ). Rainey’ s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion
. With respect the district court’s denial of Rainey’s motions for a copy of its docket and to withdraw his guilty plea, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court . United States v. Rainey , No. 5:10

- cr - 00199

- D

- 1 (E .D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2016). We thus affirm the district court’s order and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### A. M. Gammon *v.*Mary E. Williams et al.

Pleading — Bringing New Suit.

A purchaser of the right in the land of a litigant*, will not be defeated in his recovery, by bringing a new suit, against the defendant, instead of talcing charge of and becoming a party to his vendors litigation.

APPEAL FROM METCALFE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 3, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

When the father-in-law, Walbert, conveyed the 270 acres of land to his son-in-law, Williams, although the recited consideration of $400 was acknowledged as paid, yet it is evident he only paid $100, and subsequently paid other' sums. Three hundred dollars of the recited purchase price remained to be paid in three equal annual installments.

When appellant purchased of Walbert his claim on Williams then being litigated by suit he had the right and it would have been more appropriate for him to have taken charge of Walbert’s suit and become a party to it, than to begin a new suit in his own name based upon the allegations of Walbert’s petition; however, this will not prevent such recovery as would be appropriate.

The only allowable claim, however, as establisüed by this suit is as to the unpaid consideration recited in the deed, that is, whatever sum of the recited four hundred dollars that yet remains unpaid.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, with directions to refer the cause to a master to ascertain what yet remains unpaid of the said four hundred dollars recited consideration, and to adjudge against the estate of Williams this ascertained amount; as the deed recited a paid consideration, there is no vendor’s lien under our statute, but as he claims there was no attachment lien on the land which was destroyed by the burning of the clerk’s *721office, he should be allowed this on its establishment, and the proper setting up the lost records of the pending suit.

Harlan, *for appellant.*

*Garrett & Dehoney, for appellees.*