alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32


                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT

                                  Certification

     Each of the undersigned officers of the Mycom Group, Incorporated (the
"Company"), 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 Company's report Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30,
     2006, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
     (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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

     This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for
the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

August 21, 2006                             /s/ Earnest Mathis
                                            -----------------------
                                            Chief Executive Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
1. TABLE1.PDF2. TABLE3.PDF3. TABLE5.PDF4. TABLE7.PDF5. TABLE9.PDF6. TABLE11.PDF7. TABLE13.PDF8. TABLE15.PDF9. TABLE17.PDF10. TABLE19.PDF11. TABLE21.PDF12. TABLE23.PDF13. TABLE25.PDF14. TABLE26.PDF15. TABLE27.PDF16. TABLE28.PDF17. TABLE29.PDF18. TABLE30.PDF19. TABLE31.PDF20. TABLE32.PDF21. TABLE33.PDF22. TABLE34.PDF23. TABLE35.PDF24. TABLE36.PDF25. TABLE38.PDF26. TABLE40.PDF27. TABLE41.PDF28. TABLE42.PDF29. TABLE43.PDF30. TABLE48.PDF31. TABLE50.PDF32. TABLE52.PDF33. TABLE54.PDF34. TABLE55.PDF35. TABLE56.PDF36. TABLE57.PDF37. TABLE58.PDF38. TABLE59.PDF
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Central Federal Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 14, 2009
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPATreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:14-cv-14808-AC-MJH ECF No. 14 filed 04/02/15 PageID.41 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:14-cv-14808-AC-MJH ECF No. 14 filed 04/02/15 PageID.42 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Criminal Case No. 14-cr-20810-3

Plaintiff/Responden, 

v. 

Paul D. Borman 

United States District Judge

MARK MILES HOOPER,

David R. Grand 

Defendant/Petitioner. United States Magistrate Judge

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING

DEFENDANT/PETITIONER’S MOTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. §2255

On March 19, 2018, Magistrate David R. Grand issued a Report &

Recommendation (ECF No. 76) in which he recommended that the Defendant’s

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255(ECF

No. 67) be DENIED.

In the Report and Recommendation, the parties were advised that any

objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of a copy as provided for in

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2) and that failure to file specific

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. 
Inadvertently, the Report and Recommendation was not mailed to

Defendant/Petitioner until April 5, 2018. On April 23, 2018, Defendant/Petitioner

sent a letter to the Court, indicating that he received the Report & Recommendation

on April 9, 2018. He asked that he be allowed until April 24, 2018 to file any

objections. He also indicated that he was in the process of preparing his objections

and that they might be submitted well before the April 24th date.

No objections have been received by the Court as of this time. Therefore, the

Court:

(1) ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(ECF No. 76);

(2) DENIES Defendant/Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (ECF No. 67).

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 30, 2018

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on May

30, 2018.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

3
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the Annual Report of Equicap, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the
        fiscal
        year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        on
        the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Peter Wang, the Chairman of the
        Board and President, certify pursuant to 18 C.F.R. Section 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2. The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
  Date:
        September 26 , 2007
  By:  /s/
        Peter
        Wang
 Chairman
        of the Board and President
 
 This
        Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
        to 18
        C.F.R. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section
        18 of the Securities Act 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
        of
        1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,
        irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
        A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to Equicap, Inc. and will be retained by Equicap, Inc. and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MITCHELL DE RISIO AND ROSE DE RISIO, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS, v. OTTO WEILER AND FRANCES BUTTERHOF, INDIVIDUALLY AND TRADING AS WEILER & COMPANY, APPELLANTS.

Submitted May 8, 1029

Decided July 5, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bojmne.

For the respondents, *Oscar LeWive*and *Edmund 0. Gashill, Jr.*

For the appellants, *William I. Garrison.*

Pee Curiam.

The action in the District Court ivas for an unlawful taking of household goods, money, jetvelry and other personal effects. The answer denied every material allegation in the complaint, except that it admitted taking certain of the goods in question after one Loveland, the sergeant-at-arms in the Disrict Court, had executed a writ of replevin.

The case was tried before a jury and under suitable instructions they returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $500, and it is for the purpose of setting aside this verdict that the rule to show cause avrs granted.

The verdict of the jury is challenged on the ground that it is against the clear weight of eAÚdeuce, is excessive and under no possible reasoning could the jury have arrived at such a Arerdict. The eAridence offered by the plaintiff shoAvs that they had been, in possession of certain goods and that they were taken by the defendants Avhile they were away *646from home. There is some testimony as to the value of the goods. The household goods had been purchased and had been used for sometime. The purchase price and the extent of the use was testified to. There was some testimony in which the jewelry was described. Insurance papers, money and other documents seem to have been taken, and there was testimony with respect to these.

The verdict should not be disturbed unless clearly improper, and we think this verdict reasonably supported by the evidence in all aspects in which it is challenged.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
# C_2011194EN.01001501.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/15

---

Action brought on 8 April 2011 — EyeSense v OHIM — Osypka Medical (ISENSE)

(Case T-207/11)

2011/C 194/23

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EyeSense AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Osypka Medical GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the order of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 in Appeal R 1098/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 in Appeal R 1098/2010-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Osypka Medical.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ISENSE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 10 and 42 — Registration No 7 165 327.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘EyeSense’ for goods and services in Classes 10 and 42.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
§ 170.265 Class 3 doors; required locations. The following doors must always be Class 3: ( a ) Doors in all locations not addressed in §§ 170.255 and 170.260.
( b ) Doors between coal bunkers below the bulkhead deck that must be opened at sea.
( c ) Doors into trunkways that pass through more than one main transverse watertight bulkhead if the door sills are less than 2.14 meters above the deepest load line.
( d ) Doors below a deck, the molded line of which, at its lowest point at side, is less than 2.14 meters (7 feet) above the deepest load line if— ( 1 ) The vessel is engaged on a short international voyage as defined in § 171.010 of this subchapter; and
( 2 ) The vessel is required by § 171.065 of this subchapter to have a factor of subdivision of 0.5 or less.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 944, Jan. 10, 1996; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50734, Sept. 27, 1996]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Loan Repayment Program—Meeting 1.                    

*Date:*                         May 1-2, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ellen S. Buczko, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2676,                         *ebuczko1@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 4, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1766 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Couch *v.*Hice.

Submitted March 3,

Decided July 30, 1906.

Certiorari. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. July 28, 1905.

*Joseph W. & Jdhn D. Humphries,*for plaintiff.

*W. E. Talley,*for defendant.

Beck, J.

A garnished wages due B as a laborer. Upon the payment of the wages into court by the garnishee, B filed a claim thereto on the ground that they were exempt from process of garnishment. On the trial of..this issue (in a justice’s court) it transpired that when the summons of garnishment was served upon the garnishee (a cotton-mill company), B threatened to quit work, but, upon being assured by the manager of the company that his pay would not be stopped, continued his labors. He received his wages as if no garnishment had been issued. The uncontradicted testimony of the manager was to the effect that the money paid to B during the pendency of the garnishment was upon the manager’s personal guaranty, and that he was liable for itsto the mill. The justice awarded the money to the claimant, B; and A carried the case to the superior court by writ of certiorari. *Held,*that the finding of the magistrate was correct, and the certiorari was properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 JESSIE HAWKINS, #134265, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-CV-13285 

v. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 DANIEL HEYNS, 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED FEBRUARY 12, 2015 (Dkt. 16), AND (2) GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 10) 

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on February 12, 2015 (Dkt. 16). In the R&R, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10). The parties 

have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2). The Court has reviewed the R&R and concludes that the Magistrate Judge has reached 

the proper conclusion for the proper reasons. Therefore, the Court accepts the R&R. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10), and dismisses 

Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

Dated: March 4, 2015 MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

Detroit, Michigan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

2:14-cv-13285-MAG-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 03/04/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 60
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 4, 2015. 

s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams 

JOHNETTA M. CURRY-WILLIAMS 

CASE MANAGER 

2:14-cv-13285-MAG-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 03/04/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 61
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00416

- CR

K RISTOPHER K

YLE R USSELL

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 89th District

Court

of Wichita County ( 44,489

- C )

May 20, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial co urt’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          154160
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           23843
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                300000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   18964829
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                       68347813
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1024000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                93360774
<DEPOSITS>                                    68565006
<SHORT-TERM>                                  14815900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             260616
<LONG-TERM>                                    1500000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      10871211
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2495115)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                93360774
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1363035
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               229936
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 24087
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1617058
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              841875
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              976374
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           640684
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   172000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 802324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (254781)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (254781)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (254781)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.74
<LOANS-NON>                                       2148
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              (852000)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            (1024000)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         (1024000)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>