alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 99

                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 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 B.H.I.T. Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2003, the undersigned being the chief executive officer
and chief financial officer of B.H.I.T. Inc., do hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:

     1. This Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB 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 this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant at the dates and for the periods shown in such report.


B.H.I.T. Inc.


By:  /s/ James Benenson, Jr.
     ---------------------------------
     James Benenson, Jr.                                       Date: May 6, 2003
     Chairman of the Board of Directors,
     President and Chief Executive Officer


By:  /s/ John V. Curci
    ----------------------------------
    John V. Curci
    Vice-President, Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer        Date: May 6, 2003
    Principal Accounting Officer
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.60 Possession, use, and calibration of instruments used to measure the activity of unsealed byproduct material. ( a ) For direct measurements performed in accordance with § 35.63, a licensee shall possess and use instrumentation to measure the activity of unsealed byproduct material before it is administered to each patient or human research subject.
( b ) A licensee shall calibrate the instrumentation required in paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with nationally recognized standards or the manufacturer's instructions.
( c ) A licensee shall retain a record of each instrument calibration required by this section in accordance with § 35.2060.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the foregoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A filed by Fountain Powerboat Industries, Inc. (the Company) for
the quarter ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: October 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Reginald M. Fountain, Jr.        
|                       |  | Reginald M. Fountain, Jr.            
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                       | 
|Date: October 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Irving L. Smith                  
|                       |  | Irving L. Smith                      
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### § 431.261 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains energy conservation requirements for commercial prerinse spray valves, pursuant to section 135 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58.
#### Lynn Santangelo, Respondent, v County of Nassau et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for false arrest and defamation, defendants appeal 'from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, *695Nassau County, entered April 7, 1980, which, in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion for an examination before trial of defendants, upon condition that she consent to vacate the note of issue and statement of readiness and strike the action from the Trial Calendar, and (2) an order of the same court, entered April 23, 1980, which granted plaintiff’s motion, *inter alia,*to vacate the note of issue and statement of readiness. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It was not an abuse of discretion to allow plaintiff to remove the case from the calendar so that the purposes of reciprocal discovery could be effectuated. This matter has moved along expeditiously, and defendants are unable to point to any specific prejudice arising out of the orders appealed from. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000764763
<NAME>                        Triangle Imaging Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US Dollars
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        827,409
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,754,036
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,765,934
<PP&E>                        278,754
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                7,725,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,859,670
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      12,851
<OTHER-SE>                    4,925,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  7,725,641
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,821,717
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,219,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              2,770,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            62,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>               616,957
<INCOME-TAX>                  107,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           509,957
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  509,957
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Carmelo Procida, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Ralph Tomasetti, Doing Business as Ralph Tomasetti & Co., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Motion by appellant for reargument of appeal and to modify order of this court dated March 13, 1970. Motion granted. Decision (34 A D 2d 556) amended to read as follows: “ In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, as amended by,an order of said court entered May 8, 1967, in favor of plaintiff against it, upon a jury verdict, and dismissing its cross complaint against defendant Tomasetti,' upon the decision of the trial court. Amended judgment modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which is in. plaintiff’s favor against the defendant City of New York and substituting therefor a provision that plaintiff’s complaint as against said defendant is dismissed; and (2) by adding, at the end of the decretal provision thereof which dismissed the cross complaint of the defendant City of New York against defendant Tomasetti, the following: ‘without prejudice’. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the evidence presented was insufficient upon which to base an inference that the defendant City of New York had notice, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition (see *Olsen*v. *City of New York,*30 A D 2d 812; *McDermot*v. *City of New York,*287 F. 2d 49, 50). In view of our determination herein in favor of appellant against plaintiff, the portion of the amended judgment which dismissed appellant’s cross complaint against defendant Tomasetti should not be disturbed, except to the extent of adding thereto the words ‘ without prejudice ’.” Order of this court dated March 13, 1970 amended accordingly. Christ, P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2007-1661.

#### State ex rel. Griffin v. Chester Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. *1516Upon consideration of relators’ application for dismissal,

It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
§ 600.16 Legal authority and effect of an award. ( a ) A DOE financial assistance award is valid only if it is in writing and is signed, either in writing or electronically, by a DOE Contracting Officer.
( b ) Recipients are free to accept or reject the award. A request to draw down DOE funds constitutes acceptance; however, DOE may require formal acceptance of an award.
( c ) DOE funds awarded under a grant, cooperative agreement, or technology investment agreement shall be obligated as of the date the DOE Contracting Officer signs the award; however, the recipient is not authorized to incur costs under an award prior to the beginning date of the budget period shown in the award except as may be authorized in accordance with §§ 600.125(e), 600.230, 600.317(b), or 603.830 of this part. The duration of the DOE financial obligation shall not extend beyond the expiration date of the budget period shown in the award unless authorized by a DOE Contracting Officer by means of a continuation or renewal award or other extension of the budget period.
[61 FR 7166, Feb. 26, 1996, as amended at 70 FR 69254, Nov. 15, 2005; 74 FR 44276, Aug. 28, 2009]
PGI 208.7003-1 Assignments under

integrated materiel management (IMM).

(b) When an item assigned for IMM is to be acquired by the requiring activity under DFARS

208.7003-1(a)(3), the contracting officer must—

(i) Document the contract file with a statement of the specific advantage of local purchase for an

acquisition exceeding the micro-purchase threshold in FAR Part 2; and

(ii) Ensure that a waiver is obtained from the IMM manager before initiating an acquisition

exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold in FAR Part 2, if the IMM assignment is to the General

Services Administration (GSA), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), or the Army Materiel Command

(AMC). Submit requests for waiver—

(A) For GSA, to: Commissioner (F)

Federal Supply Service

Washington, DC 20406

(B) For DLA, to: DLA Land and Maritime

ATTN: DSCC-BDL

P.O. Box 3990

Columbus, OH 43216-5000

DLA Energy

ATTN: DESC-CPA

8725 John J. Kingman Road

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6222

DLA Aviation

ATTN: DSCR-BA

8000 Jefferson Davis Highway

Richmond, VA 23297-5000

DLA Troop Support

ATTN: DSCP-ILSI (for General and Industrial) DSCP-OCS (for Medical, Clothing, and Textiles)

700 Robbins Avenue, Bldg. 4

Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096
(iii) In addition, forward a copy of each request to:

Defense Logistics Agency

Logistics Operations

ATTN: J-335

8725 John J. Kingman Road

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221

For AMC: HQ, Army Materiel Command

ATTN: AMCLG-SL

4400 Martin Road

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Parent topic: PGI 208.7003 Applicability.
#### In the Matter of Abraham Greenwald et al., Appellants, v. Patrick O. Burns et al., Constituting the Committee to Fill Vacancies, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating respondent Bums as a candidate in the Democratic Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 *798for the .public office of Councilman for the 18th Couneilmanie District, Kings County, City of New York, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 9, 1969, which dismissed the petition in this proceeding, adjudged said designating petitions valid, and directed the respondent Board of Elections to print respondent Burns’ name on the .ballot for said election as such candidate. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., and Martuscello, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and grant the petition to invalidate the Bums designating petitions, with the following memorandum: On this record we conclude that, as a matter of law, the claim of respondent Bums of the establishment of a bona fide residence of 261 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, New York, prior .to the printing of the first set of petitions, which were circulated on April 1, 1969, is incredible and that the conclusion of the trial court to the contrary is unwarranted. The claim of an oral lease, of possession and of moving on March 29, 1969' is wholly unsupported by the proof and, in our opinion, is so incredible as to make invalid the petitions of respondent Bums (which state his place of residence as 261 Hicks Street), which petitions were circulated prior to, and in some cases signed on, April 1, 1969.
Subpart 2417.2 - Options    **Parent topic:** PART 2417 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS2417.204 Contracts.       (e)          (1)  			The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) is authorized to approve contract periods for other than information technology contracts that exceed the 5-year limit set forth at FAR 17.204(e) that are not otherwise limited by statute (e.g., the Service Contract Act). Except as provided for in paragraphs (e)(2) and (4) of this section, the SPE shall approve any contract period that will exceed 5 years, including all option periods, prior to the award of the basic contract.          (2) With regard to HUD indefinite-delivery contracts, the “contract period” requiring the SPE's prior approval in paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall mean the ordering period of a contract. Unless otherwise specified within the contract, the 5-year limit shall not apply to the period that any task or delivery order issued within the contract's ordering period extends beyond the final end date of the contract's ordering period, regardless of whether the performance period of the order causes the total period of the contract to exceed 5 years. The issuance of any such task or delivery order does not require the SPE's approval. Task or delivery orders with end dates extending beyond the ordering period of the contract may not exceed the final delivery date that the contracting officer has stated in the applicable indefinite-delivery FAR clause included in the contract (i.e., 52.216-20, “Definite Quantity,” paragraph (d); 52.216-21, “Requirements,” paragraph (f); or 52.216-22, “Indefinite Quantity,” paragraph (d)).          (3) The SPE's authority described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section shall not be used as the basis to retroactively increase or extend the period of any existing contract.          (4) The SPE is not required to approve any option properly exercised pursuant to the FAR clause at 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services,” that extends the contract period beyond 5 years; provided that the total length of all options exercised pursuant to FAR clause 52.217-8 may not exceed 6 months; and provided that exercise of any such options shall be in accordance with FAR 37.111. Any proposed extension of a contract beyond the 6-month maximum permitted by FAR 52.217-8 shall be considered a new requirement and shall be subject to the competition requirements of FAR part 6.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                        OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10 - QSB
                              OF SIONIX CORPORATION
                      FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2007

         The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Sionix Corporation
(the "Company"). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the
"Report").

         I, Robert E. McCray, certify that:

         (i)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) 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.

This certification is executed as of June 12, 2007

                                       /s/ Robert E. McCray
                                       --------------------
                                       Robert E. McCray, Chief Financial Officer
```

[109th Congress Public Law 334]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ334.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1774]]

Public Law 109-334
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
39-25 61st Street in Woodside, New York, as the ``Thomas J. Manton Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 12, 2006 -  [H.R. 6033]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. THOMAS J. MANTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 39-25 61st Street in Woodside, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Thomas J. Manton Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Thomas J. 
Manton Post Office Building''.

    Approved October 12, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6033:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 13, 14, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1








Certification
of Periodic Financial Report








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned, Andrew E. Kersey, the President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Jeffery A. Baird, the Chief Financial Officer of CAS Medical
Systems, Inc., (the “issuer”), do hereby certify that the report on Form 10-Q
accompanying this certification (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 that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the issuer.











/s/
Andrew E. Kersey


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


Andrew E.
Kersey


President
and Chief Executive Officer


CAS
Medical Systems, Inc.





May 5,
2010














/s/
Jeffery A. Baird


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


Jeffery
A. Baird


Chief
Financial Officer


CAS
Medical Systems, Inc.





May 5,
2010
2007-2177.

#### In re J.P.-M.

Summit App. No. 23714, 2007-0hio-5412. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and O’Connor, JJ., dissent.
#### Lillian Nelsen et al., Appellants, v. Charles R. Rampone et al., Respondents.

Appeál by plaintiffs from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 4, 1967 after a non jury trial, upon the trial court’s (1) dismissal of the complaint, which alleged false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and (2) award to defendants of $1,525 upon a counterclaim. Appeal dismissed, with costs. By order dated March 3, 1969 this court dismissed the appeal unless the appellants would file and serve a proper appendix within 30 days after entry of that order *(Nelsen*v. *Rampone,*31 A D 2d 933). Appellants have submitted a supplemental appendix which is patently insufficient to determine the issues raised. The appendix contains only excerpts of the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses and part of the cross-examination of defendant Charles Rampone. Plaintiffs’ principal contention is that the trial court erred in finding against them on the merits. “An appellate court cannot review the weight of the evidence without an examination of all the pertinent proof. Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to remedy the defect but her (supplemental appendix ’ remains wanting in that regard” *(Melville*v. *Melville,*29 A D 2d 970; see, also, *E. P. Reynolds, Inc.*v. *Nager Elec. Co.,*17 N Y 2d 51). Because of circumstances unique to this appeal, we have examined the full trial record and were we not dismissing the appeal we would affirm on the merits. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11355

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JIMMY WALTER FUENTES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-59-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Walter Fuentes pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United 

States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), and was sentenced to 30 

months of imprisonment. On appeal, Fuentes argues that the district court’s 

judgment incorrectly reflected that he violated § 1326(b)(2). Thus, he claims 

that the court believed the statutory maximum sentence to be 20 years, rather 

than 10 years, and there was “a reasonable probability of a different outcome” 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11355 Document: 00514613052 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2018
No. 17-11355

2

had the court known of the correct statutory maximum. The Government 

argues that the record does not show that any incorrect understanding of the 

statutory maximum influenced the court’s sentence, but it concedes that the 

judgment incorrectly reflects that Fuentes violated § 1326(b)(2). Accordingly, 

it asks this court to reform the judgment to show that Fuentes was convicted 

under § 1326(b)(1).

Because Fuentes did not object to the judgment’s reference to 

§ 1326(b)(2), this court’s review is for plain error. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish plain 

error, Fuentes must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that 

affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the 

error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings. Id. The parties do not dispute that the court plainly 

erred by referencing § 1326(b)(2) in the judgment. As for whether the error 

affected Fuentes’s substantial rights, nothing in the record suggests that the 

20-year maximum sentence for a violation of § 1326(b)(2) influenced the district 

court’s sentencing decision. Moreover, Fuentes’s 30-month sentence did not 

exceed the 10-year statutory maximum under § 1326(b)(1). See MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d at 366-69.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED but REFORMED to reflect 

conviction and sentencing under § 1326(b)(1).

 Case: 17-11355 Document: 00514613052 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2018