alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Linda Verboom Curry, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03088

Honorable Gary Feinerman

The Boeing Company

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, June 26, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motion to remand [17] is

entered and continued. Defendant shall respond to the motion by 7/15/2020; Plaintiff shall

reply by 7/28/2020. Telephonic status hearing set for 7/28/2020 [15] is stricken and re−set

for 8/6/2020 at 9:00 a.m. Attorneys should appear by calling the Toll−Free Number: (877)

336−1828, Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and media will be able to call

in to listen to this hearing (use toll free number). Please, please be sure to keep your phone

on mute when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are

reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting

of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including

removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of

entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed

notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03088 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:213
#### E. M. Springfield *v.*Webster County.

Sheriffs — Settlement for County Levy — County Judge Acts Ministerially and Not as a Judicial Officer — Remedy of Sheriff by Mandamus — Not Appeal.

Section 20 of the civil code does not authorize an appeal from the orders or judgment of a county court relative to the settlements by sheriffs of their accounts as collectors of the county levy. The county judge acts ministerially and not as a judicial officer in receiving and approving the settlement and if he refuses to allow the sheriff the lawful commissions, the remedy against him is by mandamus and not by appeal.

APPEAL FROM WEBSTER CIRCUIT COURT.

March 11, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts is regulated by Sec. 20, Civil Code.

This section does not authorize appeals from 'the orders or judgments of county courts relative to the settlements by sheriffs of their accounts as collectors of the county levy. For such services the law fixes the compensation of the sheriff, and the county judge acts ministerially, and not as a judicial officer in receiving and approving the settlement made by his commissioner with the sheriff. If he refuses to allow the sheriff his lawful commissions, the remedy against him is by mandamus and not by appeal.

It is difficult to determine what effect should be given to the act of March 7, 1867 (Session Act 1867, page 74), but we are satisfied that the allowances or appropriation therein referred to must be claims against the county in favor of numerous individuals or corporations, and' not commissions allowed by law to public officers.

Where officers are entitled' to a more speedy and effectual remedy than that of appeal, we will not conclude that the Legislature intended by implication to deprive them of rights essential *to*them and so long enjoyed.

*109
      *Givens, for appellant.*

*Rodman, for appellee.*

We are of opinion that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the appeal in this case and, therefore, that it did not err in dismissing it.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
23.2




Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
  The
Board of Directors
 Macquarie
Infrastructure Company LLC:
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-144016) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-138010) on Form
S-3 of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC of our report dated February 22,
2010 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of IMTT Holdings Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity, comprehensive income and cash flows
for the years then ended, which report appears in the Form 10-K of Macquarie
Infrastructure Company LLC.
  Our
report refers to the change in method of accounting for noncontrolling
interests.
    /s/
KPMG LLP
 New
Orleans, Louisiana
 February
23, 2010
    KPMG LLP. a U.S limited liability
partnership, is the U.S
 member firm of KPMG International, a
Swiss cooperative.
H. Res. 378

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 5, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3130) to provide for an alternative penalty procedure for States that fail to meet Federal child support data

processing requirements, to reform Federal incentive payments for effective child support performance, and to provide

for a more flexible penalty procedure for States that violate

interjurisdictional adoption requirements. The first reading of

the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 303(a)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order
2

•HRES 378

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and

Means now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points

of order against the committee amendment in the nature of

a substitute for failure to comply with section 303(a) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. No amendment shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the

Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6

of rule XXIII. Points of order against the amendment printed

in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to

clause 6 of rule XXIII for failure to comply with clause 7 of

rule XVI are waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the
3

•HRES 378

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"X-57 Maxwell: Circuits Activity Guide","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1VvFt3Jp7G\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/x-57-maxwell-circuits-activity-guide\/\">X-57 Maxwell: Circuits Activity Guide<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/x-57-maxwell-circuits-activity-guide\/embed\/#?secret=1VvFt3Jp7G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“X-57 Maxwell: Circuits Activity Guide” — NASA\" data-secret=\"1VvFt3Jp7G\" 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\/06\/x-57-maxwell-circuits-activity-guide-cover.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":792}
#### Mary E. Monk, plaintiff, *vs.*George Monk, defendant.

1. Where, in an action by a wife against her husband for a divorce, on tho ground of adultery, the charges are all made on information and belief, without any affidavits being tendered in support thereof, an order for alimony Will not be granted, if the defendant positively denies the charges.

2. An affidavit of the plaintiff, showing general admissions made to her by the defendant, coupled with a denial of the specific act charged in the complaint, will not supply the defect. She can only sustain her action upon the specific charges contained in the complaint.

S. Such general admissions are insufficient to show that there is any reasonable expectation of the plaintiff’s succeeding upon.the specific charges of adultery made by her.

(Before Jones, J. at special term,

July —, 1867.)

*154Motion by the plaintiff for alimony, and an allowance for expenses, in an action for a divorce.

Jones, J.

So far as this motion is based on the charge of adultery, it cannot be granted. The charges are all made on information and belief, and the defendant positively denies them. ISTo affidavits are tendered in support of them. The case then falls directly within the principle of *Osgood*v. *Osgood,*(2 *Paige,*621.) The affidavit of the plaintiff respecting general admissions of the defendant to her, does not help her case. The plaintiff must sustain, her action upon the specific charges contained in the complaint. The admission in question, even supposing it does not contravene the rule prohibiting the wife from divulging private communications made to her by her husband, being coupled with a denial of the specific act charged, is insufficient to show that there is any reasonable expectation of the plaintiff’s succeeding, upon the charges of adultery made by her.

If she has any grounds for believing in the truth of the specific charges made by her, it is not unreasonable to require her to lay the grounds, or some of them, before the court.

So far as the motion is based on the charge of abandonment, it cannot be granted on the papers before me." The allegations on the part of the plaintiff, and those on the part of the defendant, bring the case directly within *Hollerman*v. *Hollerman,*(1 *Barb.*64.)

The motion must be denied, so far as the ground' of adultery is concerned. As an opportunity was given the plaintiff to produce further affidavits in support of the charge of adultery, which opportunity she availed herself of by furnishing her own affidavit in support of the charge of adultery, leave should not be granted her to renew the motion on that ground. But as she may have a cause of *155action, on the ground of abandonment, which she may reasonably expect to sustain, and as she was not accorded an opportunity to meet the defendant’s allegation on that subject, she may renew her motion, on that ground, upon additional affidavits.
H. Res. 385

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 26, 1998.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State

and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and to

ensure that the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) proceeds in a manner consistent with

United States interests, to strengthen relations between the

United States and Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of the

Congress with respect to certain arms control agreements,

and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The

conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Joseph Yates *v.*Jesse Hambrick, Jr., etc.

Trial— Error in Response to Inquiry of the Jury — Exceptions.

An essential error in the response of the court to the inquiry of the jury, or the failure of the court to answer directly the questions propounded by the jury, if proper exceptions are taken, is an available error.

*321APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

January 6, 1872.

*Adamis, for appellant.*

*Darnaby, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

Whether there was any essential error in the response of the court to the inquiry of the jury, which they had a right to make, or whether or not there was any available error in the failure of the court to answer directly te questions which the jury propounded, if proper exceptions had been taken, as we must presume that the parties, or their counsel were present, and as no exception was taken, the supposed errors of the court are not now available in this court, and there is no other error apparent in the record.

Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
,x5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLTNOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FILED

JUN 15 2020 :$

THOMAS G. BRUTON

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

1:20-cv{3471

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ETHICON, INC.,

ETHICON US, LLC, and JOHNSON &

JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC.,

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr

Magistrate Judge Jeftey Gummings

Plaintiffs, Frr,po ExP,qnrrtxn UvonR Sear,

ADVANCED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT,

INC. d/b/a ESUTURES.COM, ANTHONY

IADEROSA JR., JASON EINHORN, MIKE

PHIPPS, and MUDASSAR SHAH,

Defendants.

NOTIFICATION OF AFFTLIATES PURSUAI\T TO

FEDERAL RULE 7.1 AND LOCAL RULE 3.2

Plaintiffs Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon US, LLC, and Johnson & Johnson

Health Care Systems Inc. submit their disclosure of affiliates pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure Rule 7.1 and Local Rule 3.2 and state that:

L Johnson & Johnson has no parent corporation, and there is no publicly held

corporation that owns 5o/o or more of Johnson & Johnson's stock.

2. Ethicon, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a publicly held

corporation.

3. Ethicon US, LLC is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a

publicly held corporation, which is its only member.

4. Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Johnson & Johnson, a publicly held corporation.

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 12 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:134
June I 5,2020

57)

No.

6302s7s)

FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

l9l North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700

Chicago,IL 60606-1698

Tel: (312) 569-1000

Fax: (312) 569-3000

bradley. andreozzi@ fae gredrinker. co m

matthew. morrissey@ fae gredrinker. co m

and

TfrlPib

GEOFFREY POTTER

ARON FISCHER (admission application to be

submitted)

TIMOTHY A. WATERS (admission application to

be submitted)

JOSHUA R. STEIN (admission application to be

submitted)

PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP

I 133 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10036-6710

Tel: (2tZ) 336-2000

Fax: (212)336-2222

gpotter@obwt.com

afischer@pbwt.com

twaters@pbwt.com

jstein@pbwt.com

Attorneys for Plaintffi Johnson & Johnson,

Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon US, LLC, and Johnson &

Johnson Health Core Systems Inc.

BRADLEY J. A (ARDC

MATTHEW M. MORRISSEY (ARDC

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 12 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:135
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
Case: 1:20-cv-03693 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Madison Olson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/madison-c-arnoldnasa-gov\/","title":"Kate A. McGinnis: Ready to \u201cGo\u201d with PACE Testing","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oq58YQ8Tg4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/goddard-people\/kate-a-mcginnis-ready-to-go-with-pace-testing\/\">Kate A. McGinnis: Ready to \u201cGo\u201d with PACE Testing<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/goddard-people\/kate-a-mcginnis-ready-to-go-with-pace-testing\/embed\/#?secret=oq58YQ8Tg4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Kate A. McGinnis: Ready to \u201cGo\u201d with PACE Testing” — NASA\" data-secret=\"oq58YQ8Tg4\" 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\/2024\/04\/gsfc-20231012-pace-029820.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7653
EDWARD LEE BRAGG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-74-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Lee Bragg, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming an order of the magistrate judge denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of US Dataworks, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    / s/ John T. McLaughlinJohn T. McLaughlin,Chief Accounting Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) I, John S. Reiland, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2004 (the Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of US
Dataworks, Inc. Dated: November 15, 2004 /s/ John S. ReilandJohn S. ReilandChief Financial Officer