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

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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


In connection with the Annual Report of OSK CAPITAL II CORP.(the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
Metrakos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated: March 6, 2006


                 /s/ George Metrakos
                 -------------------
                 George Metrakos,
                 Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          34,097
<SECURITIES>                                     8,178
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                       413
<INVENTORY>                                     61,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,268
<PP&E>                                         123,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,394)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 365,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,903
<BONDS>                                         19,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,927
<COMMON>                                         1,864
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   365,271
<SALES>                                        426,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               426,638
<CGS>                                        (353,730)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (353,730)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (17,954)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,059
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (48,151)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,908
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (19,389)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,127
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.15


 


CONSENT ACTION OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF


ELECTROMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


 


The
undersigned, Matthew N. Wolfson, being the sole director of Electromedical Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the “Company”),
hereby unanimously consent to the following actions taken on Company on October 11, 2019.


 


RESOLVED:
To issue Nikolai Ogorodnikov (“Ogorodnikov”) a total of 63,380 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock
in full and complete satisfaction of any and all claims which Ogorodnikov may have against the Company the pursuant to that certain
Promissory Note by and between Ogorodnikov and the Company dated October 31, 2013. The total amount owed to Ogorodnikov was $45,000
and the shares are valued at $0.71 per share.


 


RESOLVED:
That the Company’s transfer agent, Pacific Stock Transfer, is hereby authorized to issue the foregoing shares to Ogorodnikov
at the following address: 228 S. Doheny Dr., Apt. #4, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.


 


There
being no further business requiring board action or consideration, on motion duly made, and carried, the meeting was adjourned.


 


 


Matthew N. Wolfson


Sole Director
§ 959.3 Office address and business hours; electronic filing. ( a ) The offices of the officials identified in these rules are located at 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. Normal Business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.
( b ) The Judicial Officer electronic filing system website is accessible 24 hours a day at *https://usps-judicialoffice.journaltech.com*.
[81 FR 40194, June 21, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 61021, July 30, 2024]
Rockingham

No. 79-045

#### William J. Cotter v. Barbara C. Cotter

May 23, 1979

*427
      *Glen E. Graper,*of Portsmouth, by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.

*Kearns & Colliander P.A.,*of Exeter *(Peter F. Kearns*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The issue raised in this divorce case is whether the trial court’s order regarding division of property and alimony should be set aside.

The parties were married on March 27,1973, and were divorced by decree dated October 11,1978. Title to a condominium and all stocks, bonds and the like in the name of plaintiff were decreed to him. All stocks, bonds, and the like in the name of defendant were decreed to her. Plaintiff was ordered to pay defendant $600, which was money deposited by her to cover checks written by plaintiff. Support and alimony were specifically denied.

The decree was entered on the recommendation of the Master, *Henry P. Sullivan*Esq., after a hearing without a transcript, and defendant’s exceptions were transferred by *Bean,*J.

Without a record in this case, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in not awarding support or alimony. *McCrady v. Mahon,*119 N.H. 247, 400 A.2d 1173 (1979); *Hunneyman v. Hunneyman,*118 N.H. 652, 392 A.2d 147 (1978); *Greenglass v. Greenglass,*118 N.H. 570, 391 A.2d 890 (1978).

*Exceptions overruled.*
§ 102-34.290 What forms do I use to report a crash involving a domestic fleet motor vehicle? Use the following forms to report a domestic fleet crash. The forms should be carried in any domestic fleet motor vehicle. ( a ) *Standard Form (SF) 91, Motor Vehicle Accident Report.* The motor vehicle operator should complete this form at the time and scene of the crash if possible, even if damage to the motor vehicle is not noticeable.
( b ) *SF 94, Statement of Witness.* This form should be completed by any witness to the crash.
§ 102-85.15 What are the basic policies for charging Rent for space and services? ( a ) GSA will charge for space and services furnished by GSA (unless otherwise exempted by the Administrator of General Services) a Rent charge which will approximate commercial charges for comparable space and services. Rent for all assignments for GSA-controlled space will be priced according to the principles of the pricing policy in this part. These principles are reflected in the following elements of GSA Rent charges: ( 1 ) “Shell” Rent based on approximate commercial charges for comparable space and services for Federally owned space (accomplished using appraisal procedures);
( 2 ) Rent based on actual cost of the lease, including the costs (if any) of services not provided by the lessor, plus a GSA fee;
( 3 ) Amortization of any tenant improvement allowance used;
( 4 ) Any applicable real estate taxes, operating costs, parking, security and joint use fees; and
( 5 ) For certain projects involving new construction or major renovation of Federally-owned buildings, a return on investment pricing approach if an appraisal-determined rental value does not provide a minimum return (OMB discount rate for calculating the present value of yearly costs plus 2%) on the cost of the prospective capital investment. Each specific use of Return on Investment (ROI) pricing must be approved by OMB and duly recorded in an Occupancy Agreement (OA) with the customer agency. Once the ROI methodology is employed to establish Rent for a capital investment, the ROI method must be retained for the duration of the OA term.
( b ) Special services not included in the standard levels of service may be provided by GSA on a reimbursable basis. GSA may also furnish alterations on a reimbursable basis in buildings where GSA is responsible for alterations only.
( c ) The financial terms and conditions under which GSA assigns, and a customer agency occupies, each block of GSA-controlled space, shall be documented in a written OA.
#### § 105-68.510 Who maintains the EPLS?

In accordance with the OMB guidelines, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains the *EPLS.* When a Federal agency takes an action to exclude a person under the nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the agency enters the information about the excluded person into the *EPLS.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         161,895
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,698
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,947,594
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  9,667,897
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     66,236,126
<ALLOWANCE>                                    397,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,649,536
<DEPOSITS>                                  70,152,293
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,700,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,463,240
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,253,351        
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,080,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              83,649,536
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,721,514
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,175,729
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,897,243
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,697,609
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,898
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,190,736
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  240,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,844
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,813,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                357,311
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     357,311
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   357,311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.08
<LOANS-NON>                                    123,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               219,001
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   68,837
<RECOVERIES>                                     6,848
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              397,012
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           287,012
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        110,000
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-62298-BLOOM/Valle

ROBIN DUNCAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL

DISTRICT doing business as

BROWARD HEALTH,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR COSTS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant North Broward Hospital District’s 

Motion for Bill of Costs, ECF No. [62]. The Court referred the Motion for a Report and 

Recommendation to the Honorable Alicia O. Valle for a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”). 

See ECF No. [68]. On July 26, 2024, Judge Valle issued a R&R recommending that Defendant’s 

Motion by granted and, pursuant to Rule 54(d), Defendant should be awarded $4,466.40 in taxable 

costs. ECF No. [69]. Judge Valle advised that any party may serve and file written objections to 

the R & R within 14 days. Id. at 9. To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections, nor sought additional 

time to file objections. The Court has, nonetheless, conducted a de novo review of the R&R and 

the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 

1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

Upon review, the Court finds Judge Valle’s R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The 

Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes, for the reasons set forth therein, that 

Defendant should recover $4,466.40 in taxable costs for: (i) fees of the Clerk and Marshal ($555); 

Case 0:22-cv-62298-BB Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2024 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-62298-BLOOM/Valle

2

(ii) fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts ($3,820.40); (iii) witness fees for Gerado

Arguello ($40); and (iv) fees for copies necessarily obtained from Associates MD for use in the 

case ($51).

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The R&R, ECF No. [69], is ADOPTED; and

2. Defendant North Broward Hospital District’s Motion for Bill of Costs, ECF No. 

[62], is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 12, 2024.

________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-62298-BB Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2024 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned officer of Hines Horticulture, Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and that 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 provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange
Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A)
shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.


Date: March 30, 2004
                                                 /S/ CLAUDIA M. PIEROPAN
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Name: Claudia M. Pieropan
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer,
                                                        Secretary and Treasurer
                                                        (Principal Financial and
                                                        Accounting Officer)
§ 102-33.50 Under what circumstances may we acquire Government aircraft? ( a ) When you meet the requirements for operating an in-house aviation program contained in OMB Circular A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities” and OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget,” Part 2, “Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates,” Section 25.5, “Summary of Requirements,” Table 1, which refers to the Business Case for Acquisition and Maintenance of Aircraft, and Section 51.18, “Budgeting for the acquisition of capital assets,” subparagraph (d) (Both circulars are available at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb*), you may— ( 1 ) Acquire Federal aircraft when— ( i ) Aircraft are the optimum means of supporting your agency's official business;
( ii ) You do not have aircraft that can support your agency's official business safely (*e.g.,* in compliance with applicable safety standards and regulations) and cost-effectively;
( iii ) No commercial or other Governmental source is available to provide aviation services safely (*i.e.,* in compliance with applicable safety standards and regulations) and cost-effectively; and
( iv ) Congress has specifically authorized your agency to purchase, lease, or transfer aircraft and to maintain and operate those aircraft (see 31 U.S.C. 1343);
( 2 ) Acquire Commercial Aviation Services (CAS) when— ( i ) Aircraft are the optimum means of supporting your agency's official business; and
( ii ) Using commercial aircraft and services is safe (*i.e.,* conforms to applicable laws, safety standards, and regulations) and is more cost effective than using Federal aircraft, aircraft from any other Governmental source, or scheduled air carriers.
( b ) When acquiring aircraft, aircraft selection must be based on need, a strong business case, and life-cycle cost analysis, which conform to OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget,” Part 2, “Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates,” Section 25.5, “Summary of Requirements,” Table 1, which refers to the Business Case for Acquisition and Maintenance of Aircraft (*available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb*).
COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, 

LLC, FRANK BOSIER, ET AL.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1253

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Charles A. Francis, Judge.

Mark E. Pollack of Pollack & Rosen, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Collins Asset Group, LLC appeals an order denying its Motion to 

Substitute Party Plaintiff and Motion for Entry of Deficiency Judgment. This case 

is similar to Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Prop. Asset Mgmt., Inc., 1D15-1254, 

2016 WL 3702926, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), involving a challenge to the trial 

court’s Order on Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and Motion for Entry of 

Deficiency Judgment. In that case, Appellant Collins Asset Group filed a Motion 
2

to Substitute Party Plaintiff and Motion for Entry of Deficiency Judgment, but the 

trial court summarily denied the motion with an order that contained the following 

language: “Plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED on the basis of lack of standing in 

that Certificate of Title was issued to Property Management, Inc., and no document 

or verified pleading has been filed to indicate transfer of judgment.” This Court 

reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the trial court 

erred in two ways. First, the motion was facially sufficient. Second, the trial court 

erroneously applied the pleading requirements of rule 1.115(c), Florida Rules of 

Civil Procedure. That is, the motion before the court was not a complaint for 

foreclosure that would require the note to be attached or for it be verified. 

The motion here contains the same facts and assertions, the only differences 

are the defendant/appellee, the relevant dates, and the dollar amounts. So the order 

here suffers from one of the same problems: it denied a facially sufficient motion. 

Accordingly, the order is reversed and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

RAY, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      17,178,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,317,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,780,698
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,300,306
<PP&E>                                      41,574,253
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,309,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,302,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,410,348
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       472,777
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,851,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,302,368
<SALES>                                     35,753,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,753,000
<CGS>                                       29,123,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,851,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             407,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,719,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   462,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,257,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,257,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        

</TABLE>