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

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Global Imaging Systems, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 filed on the date hereof with the 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
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                                                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|February 8, 2007 |  | /s/ Thomas S. Johnson                                                  
|Date             |  | Thomas S. Johnson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|                 | 
|February 8, 2007 |  | /s/ Raymond Schilling                                                  
|Date             |  | Raymond Schilling, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) or otherwise subject to
liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Global Imaging
Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Global Imaging Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION





I, Gregory S. Fredrick, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Human Pheromone Sciences, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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(s) 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 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 disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any changes 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(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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; and

b) 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 9, 2006







/s/ Gregory S. Fredrick

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID M. DAVIS, §

§ No. 328, 2014

Defendant-Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware in and 

v. § for New Castle County

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff-Below, § Cr. ID No. 0207002276

Appellee. § 

Submitted: July 21, 2014

Decided: August 26, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.

O R D E R

This 26th day of August 2014, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In 2003, the appellant, David M. Davis, was convicted of three 

counts of Rape in the First Degree and other offenses and was sentenced to a 

total of sixty years at Level V followed by two years at decreasing levels of 

supervision. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Davis’ convictions and 
2

sentence.1 The Court has also affirmed the denial of Davis’ first and second 

motions for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.2

(2) Davis has appealed the Superior Court’s May 21, 2014 order 

denying his motion for transcripts at State expense. By notice dated June 20, 

2014, the Clerk directed that Davis show cause under Supreme Court Rule 

29(b) why the appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court’s lack 

of jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.

(3) In his July 21, 2014 response to the notice to show cause, Davis

states that he needs the transcript to pursue further postconviction remedies. 

Davis argues that, under the Delaware Constitution, this Court has 

jurisdiction to determine all appeals from the Superior Court in criminal 

cases, including his appeal from the May 21, 2014 denial of his motion for 

transcripts at State expense.

(4) Davis is mistaken. Under the Delaware Constitution only a 

final judgment may be reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.3 In this 

case, the Superior Court’s May 21, 2014 order denying Davis’ motion for 

 

1 Davis v. State, 2004 WL 3021168 (Del. Dec. 30, 2004).

2 Davis v. State, 2013 WL 6410231 (Del. Dec. 5, 2013) (affirming denial of second 

postconviction motion); Davis v. State, 2007 WL 2473224 (Del. Aug. 31, 2007) 

(affirming denial of first postconviction motion).

3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).
3

transcripts is an interlocutory order.

4

 The denial of Davis’ motion for 

transcripts is not appealable as a collateral order before the entry of a final 

order on a motion for postconviction relief.5 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 

29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

 

4

Accord Ridley v. State, 2014 WL 1875483 (Del. May 6, 2014) (citing Del. Const. art. 

IV, § 11(1)(b)); Browne v. State, 1992 WL 21146 (Del. Jan. 21, 1992) (citing Gannett 

Co., Inc. v. State, 565 A.2d 895, 899 (Del. 1989)).

5

See St. Louis v. State, 2012 WL 130877 (Del. Jan. 17, 2012) (citing Robinson v. State, 

704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998)).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 46 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J. Res.46

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Conferring status as an honorary veteran of the United States Armed 
                        Forces on Zachary Fisher.

Whereas the United States has only once before conferred on an 
  individual status as an honorary veteran of the United States Armed 
  Forces, when in Public Law 105-67 Congress conferred that status on 
  Leslie Townes (Bob) Hope;

Whereas status as an honorary veteran of the United States Armed Forces 
  is and should remain an extraordinary honor not lightly conferred nor 
  frequently granted;

Whereas the lifetime of accomplishments and generosity of Zachary 
  Fisher on behalf of United States military servicemembers, veterans, 
  and their families through a wide range of philanthropic activities 
  fully justifies the conferring of such status;

Whereas Zachary Fisher is himself not a veteran, having attempted to 
  enlist in the Armed Forces to serve his country during World War II, 
  but being informed that he was ineligible due to a preexisting 
  medical condition;

Whereas Zachary Fisher and his wife Elizabeth have as private citizens 
  enhanced the lives of thousands of servicemembers, veterans, and 
  their families through a wide range of philanthropic activities;

Whereas Zachary Fisher has been honored by each of the branches of the 
  Armed Forces, by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and 
  by the major veterans service organizations for projects such as the 
  preservation of the USS INTREPID as a sea-air-space museum in New 
  York harbor, the establishment of the Fisher House program for 
  relatives of critically ill members of the Armed Forces and their 
  families, and the furnishing of scholarships and other financial 
  support to families who have lost a loved one in service to their 
  country; and

Whereas Zachary Fisher has been awarded the Presidential Medal of 
  Freedom in recognition of his extraordinary patriotism and 
  philanthropy: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress--
        (1) extends its gratitude, on behalf of the American people, to 
    Zachary Fisher for his lifetime of accomplishments and philanthropy 
    on behalf of United States military servicemembers; and
        (2) confers upon Zachary Fisher the status of an honorary 
    veteran of the United States Armed Forces.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Before the Third Division,

June 23, 1945

No. 50296.

#### Protest 114522-K of Freedman & Slater, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial it was submitted upon the official papers transmitted by the collector. The record showed that one package which had been detained at the public stores for examination was subsequently marked in the manner specified by the collector. The remaining seven packages, being urgently needed, were delivered without the required marking. Under the circumstances, the acting commissioner authorized that relief from liquidated damages incurred because of failure to return the merchandise for marking be granted under section 623, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs *216Administrative Act of 1938, but required that the 10 percent additional duty be assessed under section 304 (c), as amended. In construing the section as it stood prior to the amendment, it was held in *Cotonificio Bustese, S. A.*v. *Morgenthau*(121 Fed. 2d 884) that the additional marking duty was a penalty' which the Secretary of the Treasury had power to remit under section 618, Tariff Act of 1930. The court said, however, that subsequent to the time when the exaction was imposed Congress had amended section 304 (b), and that the amendment might be taken as some evidence that the exaction was regarded as penal in character for purposes of remission prior to the amendment’s adoption. Since the merchandise in question did not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in the tariff act, nor within the provisions of article 532, Customs Regulations of 1937, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief from the assessment of 10 percent marking duty. The protest was therefore overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      49,583,959
<SECURITIES>                                60,381,123
<RECEIVABLES>                               55,557,533
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,169,413
<INVENTORY>                                 52,883,638
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           235,373,664
<PP&E>                                      31,272,698
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,403,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             263,361,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       39,260,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,887
<OTHER-SE>                                 221,097,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               263,361,177
<SALES>                                    150,145,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           204,485,272
<CGS>                                      103,565,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              103,565,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            77,195,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,451,721
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,032,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             21,276,241
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,291,068
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,985,174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
S02A0598.

#### WEAVER v. THE STATE.

Decided April 15, 2002.

William L. Weaver, *pro se.*

*N. Stanley Gunter, District Attorney,*for appellee.

(562 SE2d 183)

Fletcher, Chief Justice.

William Larry Weaver petitioned for a writ of prohibition seeking to vacate his rape and child molestation convictions and obtain a new trial. The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to prevent a subordinate court from exercising authority over matters that are not within its jurisdiction. See OCGA § 9-6-40. The record shows that no court in Georgia exceeded its jurisdiction in considering Weaver’s appeal of his convictions, extraordinary motion for new trial, or petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The failure of any appellate court to address the merits of his claims concerning exculpatory evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel is due to his own actions. The Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia dismissed his direct appeal because he escaped from jail and thus was no longer in custody, and Weaver did not file a timely application under OCGA § 9-14-52 for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his state habeas corpus petition. Because Weaver seeks relief for claims that could have been reviewed in his initial appeal or habeas proceedings, the trial court properly denied the petition for the writ of prohibition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  (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.
 Dated:  November 7, 2008
    By:
    /s/ CATHY MCCARTHYCathy McCarthyPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  November 7, 2008
    By:
    /s/ JAMES R. ECKSTAEDTJames R. EckstaedtExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                             0
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,429,971
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       306,396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,144,514
<PP&E>                          1,164,113
<DEPRECIATION>                    194,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,836,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,438,277
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            3,197
<OTHER-SE>                       3,080,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     4,836,005
<SALES>                          5,332,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 5,332,662
<CGS>                            4,601,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    4,601,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   673,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 36,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    25,466
<INCOME-TAX>                        6,017
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                25,466
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       19,449
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .01
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.12



                        CONSENT OF GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.


     We hereby consent to the use of our name under the caption "Special
Considerations; Involvement of Lazard Freres and Goldman Sachs" in the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus forming part of the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Trust and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
Inc. By giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we are experts with
respect to any part of such Registration Statement within the meaning of the
term "expert" as used in, or that we come within the category of persons whose
consent is required under, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules
and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated
thereunder.



                                        
                                        Goldman, Sachs & Co.



Dated: January 14, 1998
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Philip M. Pead, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Per-Se
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: (i) 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 such Quarterly
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                                By: /s/ PHILIP M. PEAD
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Philip M. Pead
                                                    Chairman, President
                                                    and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 5, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Per-Se Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Per-Se
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0699 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KAITLYN REBECCA HOLMES ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including June 5 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 1 2023

05/01/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0699
No. 56255.

protests 176232-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chas. H. Demarest, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.