alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Airxcel, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof and to which this Certification is an
exhibit (the "Report"), I, Melvin L. Adams, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, Richard L. Schreck, Secretary/Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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.

Date: 12-23-04

By:      /s/ Melvin L. Adams
    ------------------------------------
Melvin L. Adams
President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: 12-23-04

By:      /s/ Melvin L. Adams
    ------------------------------------
Richard L. Schreck
Secretary/Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
10189.

#### Perry *v.*Simpson.

Decided May 7, 1919.

Certiorari; from Webster superior court—Judge Littlejohn.' October 9, 1918.

*M. A. Walker, W. T. Lane,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. F. Souter, J. R. Lunsford,*contra.

Stephens, J.

“Before an applicant can have obstructions removed from a private way he must show, not only that there has been an *uninterrupted*use for more than seven years, but that it is not more than fifteen feet wide, *that he has kept it open and in repair,*and that it is the same fifteen feet originally appropriated.” *Collier*v. *Farr,*81 *Ga.*749 (7 S. E. 860). The evidence failing to show that the applicant kept such private way open and in repair, the judge of the superior court should have sustained, on certiorari, the exceptions to the order of the ordinary ordering the defendant to remove obstructions erected by him in the alleged private way. *Johnson*v. *Sams,*136 *Ga.*448 (2) (71 S. E. 891).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J.,*concur.
<PAGE>

                   FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT


      THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is made as
of this 8th day of September, 1995 by and among Mesaba Holdings, Inc.,
formerly known as AirTran Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, Mesaba
Aviation, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, AirTran Airways, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and Airways Corporation, a Delaware corporation.

                             W I T N E S S E T H:

      WHEREAS, the parties entered in a Distribution Agreement dated as of
July 13, 1995; and

      WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Distribution Agreement as set
forth hereinafter;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed as follows:

      1.  The "Distribution Date" in the Distribution Agreement shall be
deemed to be August 31, 1995, and all references in the Distribution
Agreement to the "Distribution Date" shall be deemed to be references to the
date August 31, 1995.

      2.  Except as amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the
Distribution Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment
as of the date first above written.

                                    MESABA HOLDINGS, INC.


                                    By /s/John S. Fredericksen
                                       -------------------------------------
                                        Its  Vice President
                                            --------------------------------
                                    MESABA AVIATION, INC.


                                    By /s/John S. Fredericksen
                                       -------------------------------------
                                        Its  Vice President
                                            --------------------------------

                                    AIRWAYS CORPORATION


                                    By /s/John S. Olbrych
                                       -------------------------------------
                                        Its  Senior Vice President, Finance
                                            --------------------------------

                                    AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC.


                                    By /s/John S. Olbrych
                                       -------------------------------------
                                        Its  Senior Vice President, Finance
                                            --------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TERRENCE J. HANCOCK, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) NO. 20 C 4642

A&A TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., )

an Illinois corporation, ) JUDGE JOHN R. BLAKEY

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

TO: Mr. Francisco Valdes, Registered Agent/President

A&A Transport Services, Inc.

6458 S. Lamon

Chicago, IL 60638-5824

NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and, as of right in accordance with

Rule 41(a)(1)(i), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismiss this action without prejudice to

the rights of Plaintiffs. 

/s/ Cecilia M. Scanlon 

Cecilia M. Scanlon

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 W. Adams St., Ste. 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Telephone: 312.216.2577

Facsimile: 312.236.0241

Email: cscanlon@baumsigman.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04642 Document #: 24 Filed: 03/12/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:67
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF

system, and further certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document byUnited States Mail

to the following non-CM/ECF participant on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 12th day of March

2021:

Mr. Francisco Valdes, Registered Agent/President

A&A Transport Services, Inc.

6458 S. Lamon Avenue

Chicago, IL 60638-5824

/s/ Cecilia M. Scanlon 

Cecilia M. Scanlon

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 W. Adams St., Ste. 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Telephone: 312.216.2577

Facsimile: 312.236.0241

Email: cscanlon@baumsigman.com

I:\731exc\A&A Transport Services\notice of voluntary dismissal.cms.df.wpd

Case: 1:20-cv-04642 Document #: 24 Filed: 03/12/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:68
Deere & Company 

One John Deere Place, Moline, IL 61265 USA 

John Deere Position on Standards and Regulations 

John Deere supports the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement which 

includes the following principles for global standards development. This position is aligned with 

the US Standards Strategy defined below: 

• Transparency - Essential information regarding standardization activities is accessible to all 

interested parties. 

• Openness - Participation is open to all affected interests. 

• Impartiality - No one interest dominates the process or is favored over another. 

• Effectiveness and Relevance - Standards are relevant and effectively respond to regulatory 

and market needs, as well as scientific and technological developments. 

• Consensus - Decisions are reached through consensus among those affected. 

• Performance Based - Standards are performance based (specifying essential characteristics 

rather than detailed designs) where possible. 

• Coherence -The process encourages coherence to avoid overlapping and conflicting 

standards. 

• Due Process - Standards development accords with due process so that all views are 

considered and appeals are possible. 

• Technical Assistance - Assistance is offered to developing countries in the formulation and 

application of standards. 

In addition, Deere also supports a process for standards and regulation development that includes 

the following elements: 

• Flexible, allowing the use of different methodologies to meet the needs of different technology 

and product sectors; 

• Timely, so that purely administrative matters do not result in a failure to meet market 

expectations; and 

• Balanced representation and participation among all affected interests. 

In keeping with these principles and process, John Deere believes industry developed global 

standards are the most effective approach to providing value to our customers, markets and all 

stakeholders globally. Deere acts on these beliefs by participating in relevant international 

standards committees through member-state organizations where we have a market presence 

around the world and welcome the participation of regulatory representatives to ensure the 

principles given above are achieved. 

Deere supports regulations that provide material value to our customers, users, the industry and 

society when these regulations are developed according to: (1) the above principles and 

processes; and (2) incorporated industry consensus standards to provide consistency to the 

market. 

David B. Gamble 

Manager Enterprise Engineering Standards 

GambleDavidB@JohnDeere.com 

309-765-5666
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

        STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            UNDER 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

     We, Charles E. Ramey, the chief executive officer US Dataworks, Inc. (the
"Company"), and John S. Reiland, the chief financial officer of the Company,
certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United
States Code that, to the best of our knowledge,

     (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB/A, Amendment No. 1
to Form 10-QSB, for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), 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 the
Company.

Dated: June 10, 2003

                                             /s/ Charles E. Ramey
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Charles E. Ramey
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                             /s/ John S. Reiland
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             John S. Reiland
                                             Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO US DATAWORKS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY US DATAWORKS, INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                 ----------------------------------------------


In connection with the Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-QSB of The Havana Republic, Inc (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Schatzman,
Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 302 and 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, 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 Company.

Dated:  December 13, 2002
                                    /s/ Stephen Schatzman
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Stephen Schatzman, Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

INVENTUS POWER, INC., and 

ICC ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHENZHEN ACE BATTERY CO., LTD., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-03375 

Judge Nancy L. Maldonado 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey 

Cummings 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2 and the Protective Order entered by the Court is this case, 

Defendant Shenzhen Ace Battery Co., Ltd. (“Defendant”) moves this Court for an Order 

permitting the filing under seal of Defendant’s Update to the August 26, 2022 Joint Status Report 

(“Defendant’s Update to the JSR”) and attached Exhibit A. 

In support of this motion, Defendant states as follows: 

1. On October 28, 2020, the Court entered the Protective Order (Dckt. 93). 

2. Defendant’s Update to the JSR and attached Exhibit A contain descriptions of 

documents marked by Defendant as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY” under the Protective Order in this case, including documents that refer to confidential 

customer and technical information. 

3. Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Objections and Responses to 

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories (No. 15) and is marked by Ace as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” under the Protective Order in this case, and 

includes confidential customer and technical information. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7462
2 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion for Leave 

to file Under Seal. 

Dated: November 1, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kevin C. Wheeler 

Kevin C. Wheeler 

One of the Attorneys for Defendant Shenzhen 

Ace Battery Co., Ltd.

Sean M. Berkowitz (ARDC No. 6209701) 

Matthew W. Walch (ARDC No. 6226308) 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 

Chicago, IL 60611 

Telephone: (312) 876-7700 

Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 

sean.berkowitz@lw.com 

matthew.walch@lw.com 

Kevin C. Wheeler (pro hac vice) 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

555 11th St NW Ste. 1000 

Washington, DC 20004 

kevin.wheeler@lw.com 

Telephone: (202) 637-2200 

Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 

Rachel R. Blitzer (pro hac vice) 

Stephen D. O’Donohue (pro hac vice) 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

885 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 906-1274 

Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 

rachel.blitzer@lw.com 

stephen.odonohue@lw.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:7463
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated March 13, 2008, accompanying
the consolidated financial statements and managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of QC Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K as of December 31, 2007.
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of QC Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-119167, effective September 21, 2004).



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
|                      
|Kansas City, Missouri 
|March 13, 2008
Order entered March 8, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01317 - CV THE ESTATE OF MAX D. HOPPER, DECEASED On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 11 - 03238 - 1



### O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Jackie Galindo’s March 6, 2019 letter requesting an additional four to six weeks to file the record

. We GRANT the request to the extent we ORDER the record be filed no l ater than April 15, 2019. Because the record was first due November 29, 2018, we caution Ms. Galindo that failure to comply with this order may result in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until t he record i s filed

. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Brenda Hull Thompson, Presiding Judge of Probate Court No. 1; Ms. Galindo; and, the parties. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
1) I think a good addition in “Data Inventory and Protection Attestations” would be providing users

information on which cloud providers if any and in what regions sensitive data shared by the users

would be shared.

2) Adding attestation that communication protocols be it device and user, device and device etc.

should include encryption in transit. This is 2021 and I am surprised when devices don’t’ use TLS etc.

This should be in “Critical Cybersecurity Attributes and Capability Attestations”.

3) How is software integrity and provenance adhered in case of white labeled IOT products. Example:

you use a 3rd party IOT device and white label it with your brand and sell it? There should be criteria

on who signs it and till when it should be valid and who is responsible for the software integrity.

Regards,

Ayu
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




William F. Garrett, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Delta Mills,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2,
          2004 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350) and may not be relied upon by anyone for any other purpose. The
undersigned expressly disclaims any undertaking to update such certification
except as required by law.






Date    November 16, 2004               By: /s/ William F. Garrett
      -----------------------------     ------------------------------------
                                        William F. Garrett
                                        President & Chief Executive Officer



A signed copy of this written statement required by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NIKE, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AWEFAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-03733 

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

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

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

(“Nike” or “Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice as to the following Defendants: 

Defendant Name Line No. 

army0118 35

buer_wulian 47

eagle-home 64

facaishu100 68

fashion-homes 72

geometric-family 77

hello*cloud 85

huibo_home 96

lion_homes 111

monkey-home 121

pagetogether317 129

peter18821 131

probike936 136

romantic-meet 142

Case: 1:20-cv-03733 Document #: 57 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3561
2 

Dated this 16th day of October 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ RiKaleigh C. Johnson 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

 RiKaleigh C. Johnson 

 Jake M. Christensen 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 / 312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

 rjohnson@gbc.law 

 jchristensen@gbc.law 

 Counsel for Plaintiff Nike, Inc. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03733 Document #: 57 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3562
9880.

#### Meritas Mills *v.*Way.

Jenkins, J.

1. The plaintiff’s amendment to the tenth paragraph of her petition, made at the trial court, was not such as materially to change the cause of action, and thus open the whole petition to demurrer at that time; nor did the court err in overruling the demurrer to that paragraph as amended.

2. “Except in ease of railroad companies, the master is not liable to one servant for injuries arising from the negligence or misconduct of other servants about the same business” (Civil Code of 1910, § 3120), nor is the master liable for injuries to a servant resulting from the negligence of the servant himself. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3131, 4426; *Butler*v. *Atlanta Buggy Co.,*10 *Ga. App.*175 (73 S. E. 25) ; *Wing*v. *Savannah Guano Co.,*17 *Ga. App.*534 (87 S. E. 827). It necessarily follows, that the master is not liable for injuries resulting to a servant from the concurrent negligence of the plaintiff himself and a fellow-servant. The court therefore erred in charging the jury that “if the plaintiff was injured as alleged, and her injury,—that is, the breaking of her arm— the consequent injury to her—damage to her—was caused by the negligence of the fellow-servant and the negligence also of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover.” Although in other and different portions of the charge the judge correctly instructed the jury upon the questions here involved, he did not undertake to correct th« erroneous charge above quoted, and a new trial must be granted. Sea *355*Central of Georgia Ry. Co.*v. *Deas,*22 *Ga. App.*425 (3), 427-8 (90 . S. E. 267).

Decided January 29, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Columbus—Judge Tigner. June *4,*1918.

*Battle & Hollis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ed. Wohlwender, Hatcher & Hatcher,*contra.

3. There was some evidence to authorize a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, though it did not require such a verdict. The requests to charge set out in grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial were, so far as legal and pertinent, sufficiently covered by the charge given; grounds 1, 6, 7, and 8, assigning error upon certain .excerpts from the charge of the court, even though in some degree slightly inaccurate, are without substantial merit, when considered in connection with the context and the entire charge, as is also ground' 10, which complains of the admission of certain testimony.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*