alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
 
 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bradley W. Evans, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
 (1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.
 
 
 Date: May 13, 2011
/s/ Bradley W. EvansBradley W. EvansChief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                    EXHIBIT 5

               Opinion of Surovell, Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C.

                                 April 30, 1998

SSE Telecom, Inc.
Suite 710
8230 Leesburg Pike
Vienna, Virginia  22182

Gentlemen:

         You have requested our opinion as counsel for SSE Telecom, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the registration under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder, for the public offering by the Company of up to 425,000
shares of common stock pursuant to its 1997 Equity Participation Plan for
officers, directors, employees, and consultants of the Company, or any of its
subsidiaries.

         We have examined the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 in
the form to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
April 30, 1998 (the "Registration Statement"). We further have examined the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Company as certified by the Secretary of
State of the State of Delaware, the Bylaws and the minute books of the Company
as a basis for the opinion hereafter expressed.

         Based on the foregoing examination, we are of the opinion that, upon
issuance and sale in the manner described in the Registration Statement, the
shares of common stock covered by the Registration Statement will be legally
issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

         We consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      SUROVELL, JACKSON, COLTEN & DUGAN, P.C.

                                      By:  /s/ G. Donald Markle 
                                         --------------------------------------
                                               G. Donald Markle

                                       11
Number Document/ Subject Date Author Recipient

A01 RBP Minor Modification Ambient Air Quality Impacts Report 2-Jan-12 Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9 Steve Ileff, RBP 

A02 RBP PSD Minor Modification Public Notice 2-Jan-12 Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9 Steve Ileff, RBP 

A03 RBP Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit 2-Jan-12 Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9 Steve Ileff, RBP 

Proposed Prevention of Signification Deterioration Documents

REGION 9

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Administrative Record Index

Rio Bravo Poso (RBP) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit

Permit No. SJ 85-06

February 2012
Number Document/ Subject Date Author Recipient

B01 Technical Support Document Facts 7-Nov-11 Ted Guth, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

B02 Rio Bravo Poso Contact Information 18-Nov-11 Ted Guth, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

B03 US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Discussion 8-Dec-11 Damian Higgins, USFWS Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

E-mail Communications Related to Minor Modification of PSD Permit

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 9

Administrative Record Index

Rio Bravo Poso Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit

Permit No. SJ 85-06

February 2012
Number Document/ Subject Date Author Recipient

C01 Minor Modification Request 17-May-10 Bill Rossiter, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

C02 Site Specific Modification Questions 12-Oct-10 Bill Rossiter, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

C03 Baseline Actual Calculations 27-Oct-10 Bill Rossiter, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

C04 Trial Burn Extension Request 22-Jul-11 Maynard Adams, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

C05 Greenhouse Gas Calculations 12-Oct-11 Eric Moller, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

C06 Trial Burn Report 7-Nov-11 Catherine Castillo, Rio Bravo Poso Omer Shalev, EPA Region 9

Correspondence Material Related to Minor Modification of PSD Permit

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 9

Administrative Record Index

Rio Bravo Poso Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit

Permit No. SJ 85-06

February 2012
No. 61673.

#### John F. Kaiser Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 134366-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of goatskins and sheepskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 54, C. D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 3, 2011 

# Order

May 3, 2011

141752(72)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 141752 v COA: 291617 Wayne CC: 08-013456-FC DONALD C. RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ __________________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by defendant -appellant for extension to April 29, 2011 of the time for filing his supplem ental brief is GRANTED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit: 9.1FT



                                VOTING AGREEMENT

      THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the December 3, 1998 by the undersigned
shareholders (the "Shareholders") of Futech Interactive Products, Inc., an
Arizona corporation ("Futech"), for the benefit of F. Keith Withycombe and
Patricia A. Withycombe, husband and wife ("Withycombe").

                                R E C I T A L S:

      A. Futech and Withycombe entered into a Subordination, Priority and
Security Agreement, dated December 3, 1998, wherein, among other things, Futech
agreed to indemnify Withycombe against obligations under a Guaranty, dated
December 3, 1998 (the "Guaranty") in favor of Bank of America ("Lender").

      B. The Subordination, Priority and Security Agreement requires Futech to
deliver to Withycombe this Voting Agreement.

      C. The Shareholders are willing to execute this Agreement in favor of
Withycombe in connection with Withycombe undertaking the obligations set out in
the Guaranty.

                                     TERMS:

      1. So long as there are outstanding any obligations guaranteed by
Withycombe in the Guaranty, the Shareholders agree to vote their shares of stock
of Futech for Keith Withycombe as a member of the Board of Directors of Futech.

      DATED the date first hereinabove written.

                                  SHAREHOLDERS:


                                        /s/ Vincent W. Goett
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Vincent W. Goett


                                        /s/ Melissa Anne Turner Goett
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Melissa Anne Turner Goett
December 31, 1948

No. 52800.

Suit 4571.

#### Ohio Department of Liquor Control *v.*United States.

Abstract 51470. (Appeal dismissed November 4, 1948.)
Exhibit
32.2




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO\


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Exobox Technologies Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),


I,
Michael G. Wirtz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 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:
November 12, 2008








/s/
      Michael G. WirtzChief
      Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 10883)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 800543-1/2, etc.

(Decided January 27, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

December 4, 1967

No. P67/427.

#### Airesearch Manufacturing Company et al. *v.*United States, protests 63/23073, etc. (Los Angeles).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist *912of parts of air data computers for F-104 aircraft; that the items marked “B” consist of parts of air data computers for F-104 aircraft, wliiclr bad been exported for repair and return (dutiable on the value of the repairs only); that all of said parts are similar in all material .respects to the airplane parts the subject of *Railway Express*Agency, *Inc., a/c Airesearch Manufacturing Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 328, C.D. 2598), affirmed in *Id.*v. *Id.*(57 Cust. Ct. 304, C.D. 2797) ; and that the applicable regulations have been complied with, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

March 4, 1968

No. P68/99.

protest 63/3097 (New York).

#### L. Thaler & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of plastic horns, which are not dedicated to use as parts of bicycles, which are most similar in the uses to which they may be applied, and which, except for component material, are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                      [Letterhead of BK Associates, Inc.]

                                                                    Exhibit 23.5

December 16, 1998


America West Airlines, Inc.
51 West Third Street
Tempe, AZ  85281


Re:      America West Airlines, Inc.
         Pass Through Certificates, Series 1998-1


Ladies & Gentlemen:

         We consent to the reference to our name in the text under the headings
"Risk Factors - Risk Factors Relating to the Certificates and the Exchange Offer
- Possible Effects if Aircraft Appraisals do not Correspond to the Realizable
Value of Aircraft," "Description of the Aircraft and the Appraisals - The
Appraisals", "Experts" and "Appendix II - Appraisal Letters" in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
We also consent to the inclusion in the Registration Statement of the report
prepared by us with respect to the Aircraft referred to therein.


                                        Sincerely,


                                        BK ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                        /s/ John F. Keitz
                                        John F. Keitz
                                        President
                                        ISTAT Senior Certified Appraiser

JFK/kf
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          61,615
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,268
<INVENTORY>                                      7,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               733,856
<PP&E>                                       1,025,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 208,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,468,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          709,612
<BONDS>                                      1,203,168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           985
<OTHER-SE>                                     316,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,468,032
<SALES>                                        489,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               489,019
<CGS>                                          310,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  310,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               220,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,871
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,007)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (109)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,116)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 13,411
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,527)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, James H. Ross, 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 2002, to my knowledge 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 2, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/ James H. Ross                                  
|                        |  |  |  | James H. Ross
President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q/A pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of
Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q/A for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6576

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ANTHONY ALEXANDER ROSE, a/k/a Michael Colfield, a/k/a Anthony Brown, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-73-BO, CA-97-151-4-BO) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Anthony Alexander Rose, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Alexander Rose filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on November 14, 1997; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed at the earliest on January 31, 1998, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(c), which is beyond the sixty day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. Wetherefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Before the Second Division,

November 22, 1967

No. P67/410.

#### Victor England Agencies, S.F., et al. *v.*United States, protests 61/2419, etc. (Los Angeles).

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hanging paper similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Victor England*
      *909
      *Agencies, Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2394), tbe claim of tbe plaintiffs was sustained.
H. Con. Res. 428 Agreed to October 17, 2000

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 5164, entitled ‘‘An

Act to amend title 49, United States Code, to require reports concerning defects in motor vehicles or tires or other motor vehicle

equipment in foreign countries, and for other purposes’’, the Clerk

of the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections

in section 6:

(1) insert before ‘‘Section 30120(c)’’ the following: ‘‘(a)

REMEDY PROGRAM.—’’; and

(2) insert at the end of section 6 the following:

‘‘(b) REIMBURSEMENT PRIOR TO RECALL.—Section 30120(d) of

title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end

thereof the following: ‘‘A manufacturer’s remedy program shall

include a plan for reimbursing an owner or purchaser who incurred

the cost of the remedy within a reasonable time in advance of

the manufacturer’s notification under subsection (b) or (c) of section

30118. The Secretary may prescribe regulations establishing what

constitutes a reasonable time for purposes of the preceding sentence

and other reasonable conditions for the reimbursement plan.’’.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.