alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randal Hardy, Chief Executive Officer and 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 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Date: December 17, 2010

| |                                                                                                                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By:   /s/ Randal Hardy
_____________________________
Randal Hardy
Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
Principal Executive and Financial Officer







The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying
Annual Report of Index Oil and Gas Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Lyndon West, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





Date:
      July 10, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Lyndon
      WestLyndon
      WestChief
      Executive Officer
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 American Fire Retardant Corp., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randy W. Betts , 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 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.











**AMERICAN FIRE RETARDANT CORP**Date: August 13, 2004
By:
/s/ Randy W. BettsRandy W. BettsTitle: Chief Financial Officer of American Fire Retardant Corp
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



B&G FOODS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

     <ARTICLE>                                                5
     <MULTIPLIER>                                             1,000
            
     <S>                                                      <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  3-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        JAN-01-2000
     <PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-03-1999
     <PERIOD-END>                                             APR-03-1999
     <CASH>                                                           926
     <SECURITIES>                                                       0
     <RECEIVABLES>                                                 21,354
     <ALLOWANCES>                                                  (1,143)
     <INVENTORY>                                                   61,098
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              88,825
     <PP&E>                                                        42,152
     <DEPRECIATION>                                                (8,271)
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               460,150
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         28,776
     <BONDS>                                                      343,774
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
     <PREFERRED>                                                        0
     <COMMON>                                                           0
     <OTHER-SE>                                                    55,445
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               460,150
     <SALES>                                                       56,480
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              56,480
     <CGS>                                                         32,711
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 19,443
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             5,061
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (735)
     <INCOME-TAX>                                                    (360)
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (375)
     <DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
     <CHANGES>                                                          0
     <NET-INCOME>                                                    (375)
     <EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
             



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60200 Summary Calendar

GARY A. STAATS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:95-CV-28-LN

- - - - - - - - - - September 17, 1996 Before Judges WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gary A. Staats appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that Staats was not entitled to disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Staats raises four issues on appeal. First, Staats argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, rather than relying onNo. 96-60200 - 2 -

1 Greenspan v. Shalala , 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1984 (1995).

2 Fraga v. Bow en , 810 F.2d 1296, 1304 (5th Cir. 1987).

3 Greenspan v. Shalala , 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1984 (1995); Scott v. Heckler , 770 F.2d 482, 485 (5th Cir. 1985). vocational expert testimony. Second, Staats argues that there was not substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding of no disability. Third, Staats argues that the ALJ erred in giving no weight to a report from Staats’s regular treating physician. Fourth, the Appeals Council erred in not considering new evidence submitted with Staats’s request for review. The scope of review applicable to this case is limited to determining whether the findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard. 1 This Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case and the briefs of the parties. Our review reveals no error. First, The ALJ’s finding that Staats’s nonexertional impairments did not affect his residual functional capacity for the full range of sedentary work is supported by substantial evidence, therefore, the ALJ was entitled to rely exclusively on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. 2 Second, the medical records from the treating physician contained only a few objective findings, and these findings primarily concerned treatment after the expiration of Staats's insured status, therefore, the ALJ properly gave them no weight. 3 Third, the Appeals Council carefully considered the new evidence submitted by Staats and found no basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. Staat’s assertion that this evidence was not considered has no basis in fact. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                           Three months ended
                                                June 30,
                                                --------
                                           2001          2000
                                           ----          ----

Net Income                              $1,166,000    $  807,000
                                        ==========    ==========

Average shares outstanding               1,633,733     1,810,744
                                        ==========    ==========

Basic earnings per share                $     0.71    $     0.45
                                        ==========    ==========

Net Income                              $1,166,000    $  807,000
                                        ==========    ==========

Average shares outstanding               1,633,733     1,810,744


Net effect of dilutive stock options        87,502            --
                                        ----------    ----------

Adjusted shares outstanding              1,721,235     1,810,744
                                        ==========    ==========

Diluted earnings per share              $     0.68    $     0.45
                                        ==========    ==========
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OUYEINC LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Ukliss Store and et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 20 cv 3491

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 41(a)(1)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Ouyeinc Ltd.

(“Ouyeinc” or “Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to settlement as 

to the following Defendants:

Defendant Name Line No.

Charmming Girl 282

Denimshop 307

BetibaoLQ 274

qingcangqilu

308

Car decoration 285

Prettygirl Store 279

Guangzhou Welltop Electronic Co., Ltd 208

Shenzhen Meiladi Electronic Ltd. 240

Case: 1:20-cv-03491 Document #: 61 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:321
Adoolla Store 52

VIPLink Dropshipping Store 59

welltop Store 76

Saituo Co.,Ltd. Store 33

All for manicure Store 101

OHA MY GIRL Store 31

GaGa Deal 288

Goodworld 183

Foreverlily Appliances Store 65

DATED September 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James A. Karamanis

James A. Karamanis

Barney & Karamanis, LLP

Two Prudential Plaza

180 N. Stetson, Ste 3050

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel.: 312/553-5300

Attorney No. 6203479

James@bkchicagolaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Ouyeinc Ltd.

Case: 1:20-cv-03491 Document #: 61 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:322
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Milo McCormick Stanley, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-0430-PHX-GMS

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ motion for reconsideration and their motion

to strike. (Doc. 139.) Respondents request that the Court reconsider its order allowing

Petitioner to file certain depositions, deposition exhibits, an interview transcript, and a video

deposition after judgment had been entered in this case. (Id.) Respondents also move to

strike from the record the written and video deposition of Dr. Paul Bindleglass, which was

filed prior to judgment. (Id.) 

This Court’s Local Rules, LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) provides that the Court will not grant a

motion for reconsideration without providing the opposing party an opportunity for response,

which will be ordered. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /
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

- 2 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED requiring that Petitioner provide a response to

Respondents’ motion for reconsideration and their motion to strike within fourteen (14) days

of this Order.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2011.
#### T. T. McGuire *v.*L. P. Lorian.

Contracts — Breach—Measure of Damages — Instructions.

The twelfth, instruction given to the jury placed no limit upon the amount they could assess as damages. They are told, in assessing the damages, they may find in any amount that in the exercise of a sound discretion they may think the plaintiff was damaged.

Held, that there can be no objection to the latter part of the instructions, but when taken in connection with the former part it conveys to the jury the idea that they have the right to find other than actual damages which is erroneous.

APPEAL ¿FROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 16, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Pryor :

The evidence in this case did not authorize the verdict or judgment rendered, and the instruction, No. 12, given at the instance of appellee’s counsel w-as calculated to mislead the jury. The plaintiff, in an action like this, can only recover the actual damages resulting from the breach of the contract iby the defendant. Conceding the breach of the contract to have been established by the proof (and this we do not decide), and allowing to the plaintiff the amount of the expenditures incurred by him in removing to- and from the farm of the appellant, the verdict should not have exceeded fifty or sixty dollars. The board and provisions furnished the appellee by the appellant as far as the testimony in the record shows, was ample compensation for the services rendered by him, and if not giving him a ‘reasonable sum for his labor the whole amount of damage should not exceed $175.00. The twelfth instruction given to the jury places no limit upon the amount the jury could assess as damages. They *146are told in assessing the damages they may find in any amount that in the exercise of a sound discretion, they may think the plaintiff was damaged, and that in estimating the damages they may take into consideration the time lost, and labor and expenses of Lorian in removing to and from the appellant’s -farm. There can be no objection to the latter part of this instruction, but when taken into connection with the former part of the instruction it conveys to the jury the idea that they have the right to find other than the actual damages proven. They can not find punitive or vindictive damages. Nor can they speculate upon what might have been the probable loss, or profit, of the joint undertaking had it been carried' out. The jury were confined to the actual damages proven and this instruction was calculated to mislead them. Wherefore for the reasons indicated the judgment of .the court below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to set aside the verdict of the jury, and award' to the appellant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

*Bigger, Moss & <Marshall, for appellant.*

*Bramlette, Durrett & B. King, for appellee.*
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LKQ CORPORATION, and ) Case No. 1:20-cv-2753

KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE )

INDUSTRIES, INC. ) Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, )

GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY )

OPERATIONS, LLC, and )

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC )

)

Defendants. )

OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE AN OVERLENGTH BRIEF PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.1

Plaintiffs LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (collectively

“LKQ”) hereby move this Court: (1) for leave to file a single overlength brief of up to 50 pages in

support of the four summary judgment motions discussed with this Court on April 25, 2022, during

an off-the-record summary judgment conference; (2) for leave to include up to 300 numbered

paragraphs in LKQ’s Rule 56.1(a)(2) Statement of Material Facts in support of the foregoing

summary judgment motions; and (3) for leave to file a single overlength reply brief not to exceed

30 pages in support of those same four summary judgment motions. In support of said motion,

LKQ files concurrently herewith its Memorandum in Support of Opposed Motion for Leave to

File an Overlength Brief Pursuant to L.R. 7.1.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LKQ respectfully requests this Court grant

the instant motion and enter an order: (1) granting LKQ leave to file a single overlength brief of

up to 50 pages in support of its four summary judgment motions; (2) granting LKQ leave to include

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 255 Filed: 11/14/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:5016
2

up to 300 numbered paragraphs in LKQ’s Rule 56.1(a)(2) Statement of Material Facts in support

of the foregoing summary judgment motions; and (3) granting LKQ leave to file an overlength

reply brief not to exceed 30 pages in support of those same four summary judgment motions.

Dated: November 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Michael P. Bregenzer

Barry F. Irwin, P.C.

Michael P. Bregenzer

Robyn Bowland

Andrew Himebaugh

Nicholas Wheeler

Daniel Zhang

IRWIN IP LLC

150 N Wacker Dr, Ste 700

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel.: (312) 667-6080

birwin@irwinip.com

mbregenzer@irwinip.com

rbowland@irwinip.com

ahimebaugh@irwinip.com

nwheeler@irwinip.com

dzhang@irwinip.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs LKQ

Corporation & Keystone Automotive

Industries, Inc.

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 255 Filed: 11/14/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:5017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via ECF on November 14, 2022,

upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Gloria Rios

Gloria Rios

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 255 Filed: 11/14/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:5018
#### Commonwealth of Kentucky for the Use of Steinaugh, etc., *v.*M. D. Rothwell, etc.

Executions — Sale. Under — Taking Bond — Sheriff's Return Prima Facie Evidence Of — Lost Bond.

The sheriff’s return -on an execution that he has made a sale of the property and taken bond from the purchaser is prima facie evidence of the fact, but in an action on his official bond for failure to take a sale bond, it is incumbent on him to prove that fact, where the bond is lost or misplaced by him.

APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT.

November 1, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

In this case it is made to appear from the evidence that no sale bond was ever executed to the appellants for the amount of their execution. The return of the sheriff may be *prima facie*evidence that the sale was made and the bond executed, but in this strict proceeding against him it is incumbent on him to show that a bond was executed in order that the plaintiffs may make their money, and it certainly should be required of the sheriff, when the clerk testifies that no such bond was. returned to bis office. He can easily ascertain the names of the obligors *252if any such bond was given, and at least ought to be required to disclose them. The sheriff in this case, before he can be released, must enable the appellant to proceed against the parties on this sale bond that he alleges was executed for the amount of plaintiff’s execution. He has credited the execution by the amount of the sale, and is certainly liable under this bond which was executed and returned to the office, and if lost, or misplaced by him, he must give the names of the parties signing it, and for this purpose he is permitted to amend his answer. The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Ricketts, for appellant.*

*M. D. Hay, for appellee.*
H. Res. 219

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 4, 1997.

Whereas the House of Representatives has heard with great

sadness of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a

tragic automobile accident;

Whereas Diana, Princess of Wales, touched the hearts of the

British and American people with her unflagging humanitarian and charitable efforts, her grace, and her good

humor;

Whereas Diana, Princess of Wales, was a leader in such

causes as the struggles against HIV/AIDS, breast cancer,

and homelessness, and in efforts on behalf of the innocent victims of antipersonnel land mines;

Whereas many of the more than 100 humanitarian and charitable causes championed by Diana, Princess of Wales,

operated within the United States and involved matters

important to the American people; and

Whereas the outpouring of sympathy by the American people

has underscored the ties between the British and American peoples, who are at this moment united with people

around the world in their sadness at the passing of

Diana, Princess of Wales: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses

its deep and heartfelt condolences to the British people and
2

•HRES 219 EH

government and to the family, especially the children, of

Diana, Princess of Wales, on their tragic loss.

SEC. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall

transmit copies of this resolution to the Ambassador of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to

the United States for transmittal to the British government

and to the family of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Attest:

Clerk.
Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 1 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 2 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 3 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 4 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 5 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 6 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 7 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 8 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 9 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 10 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 11 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 12 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 13 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 14 of 15

Case 2:15-cv-02653-ROS   Document 1   Filed 12/30/15   Page 15 of 15