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



Exhibit 31 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Michael J. Koss, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Koss 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. I am 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 my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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; and c) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee
of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): 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: September 30, 2004 /s/ Michael J. Koss
No. 57702.

#### P. John Hanrahan, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 201328-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 61352.

protest 295702-K (New York).

#### Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2476

MIGUEL ANGEL ARIAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BELL ATLANTIC NETWORK SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge.

(CA-98-2191-Y)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Hermina, John Hermina, HERMINA LAW GROUP, Laurel, Maryland,

for Appellant. R. Michael Smith, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We note that because Arias does not challenge the district

court’s finding that some of his claims were time-barred, he therefore has abandoned those claims on appeal. See Edwards v. City of

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that

issues not briefed or argued on appeal are deemed abandoned). We

also decline to consider for the first time on appeal Arias’ claims

of retaliation related to his December 1996 charge of discrimination. See First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil Inc.,

206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider issues

raised for first time on appeal); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d

246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for first time

on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice).

2

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Arias appeals the district court’s orders granting

summary judgment in favor of his former employer in this employment

discrimination action and denying his motion to compel discovery.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendices, and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* See

Arias v. Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. (D. Md. Aug. 2 & Oct. 7,

1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
Before the Third Division,

March 31, 1949

No. 52982.

#### Schenley Distilleries, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 120692-K and 121538-K (Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TOM L. CAREY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:04-cv-1225 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 In an order filed April 30, 2015, this court set a settlement conference for January 7, 2016, 

at 9:00 a.m. ECF No. 338. In the order, the parties were directed to provide their confidential 

settlement statements to chambers. Id. The court has received a document from plaintiff titled 

“Motion to Provide Confidential Settlement Statement and Motion to Request Defendant 

Cervantes to Fulfill Obligation.” Because it appears that the document is intended to be 

plaintiff’s confidential settlement statement, it has not been filed with the Clerk of the Court. 

However, the document also appears to contain a motion to lift the stay of the court’s September 

29, 2014 order directing defendant Cervantes to satisfy the 2009 judgment in light of the 

settlement conference being scheduled for January 2016. Since settlement statements are not 

filed with the Clerk or provided to the other party, if plaintiff seeks to lift the stay, he must file a 

separate motion with the court so that defendant has an opportunity to respond. 

//// 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 340 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Provide Confidential Settlement Statement and Motion to 

Request Defendant Cervantes to Fulfill Obligation” is deemed to be his confidential settlement 

statement; and 

2. If plaintiff seeks to lift the stay of the court’s September 29, 2014 order, he must file 

his request as a separate motion. 

DATED: May 13, 2015 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 340 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2
**TSL 3 - Reference**

Calculated on 5/31/2013 at 10:33:17 AM

**Rebate** PC1 PC2 Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0 Policy Case mkt shr 11.7 11.9 Increased mkt shr 11.7 11.9 **Consumer Tax Credit** PC1 PC2 Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0 Policy Case mkt shr 0.7 0.7 Increased mkt shr 0.7 0.7 **Manufacturer Tax Credit** PC1 PC2 Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0 Policy Case mkt shr 1.4 1.4 Increased mkt shr 1.4 1.4 **Voluntary Efficiency Target** PC1 PC2 Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0 Policy Case mkt shr 14.6 14.6 Increased mkt shr 14.6 14.6 **Early Replacement** PC1 PC2 Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0 Policy Case mkt shr 20.2 20.2 Increased mkt shr 20.2 20.2 **Bulk Govt Purchase** PC1 PC2 Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0 Policy Case mkt shr 0.1 0.1 Increased mkt shr 0.1 0.1

**Summary**

**PC 1 NES**  **NPV (7%dr) NPV (3%dr)**  quad bi $ bi $ Rebate 0.06 0.18 0.39 Consumer Tax Credit 0.02 0.07 0.16 Manufacturer Tax Credit 0.01 0.04 0.09 Voluntary Efficiency Target 0.37 1.31 2.88 Early Replacement 0.02 0.09 0.13 Bulk Govt Purchase 0.01 0.02 0.05 Standards 0.48 1.52 3.36

**PC 2 NES**  **NPV (7%dr) NPV (3%dr)**  quad bi $ bi $ Rebate 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Tax Credit 0.00 0.00 0.00 **Increase in Market Share in 2016 (% )** Manufacturer Tax Credit 0.00 0.00 0.00

Voluntary Efficiency Target 0.00 0.01 0.02 Early Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bulk Govt Purchase 0.00 0.00 0.00 Standards 0.01 0.02 0.04**Rebate Analysis**

B/C ratio without rebate 6.0 3.0 Rebate amount $4.00 $4.00 B/C ratio with rebate 27.2 6.2 Calc Mkt Barrier Curve No Barriers No Barriers

2016 201720182019202020212022202320242025 Rebate 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 Consumer Tax Credit 0.7 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Manufacturer Tax Credit 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Voluntary Efficiency Target 14.6 36.7 43.643.643.647.049.0 52.0 55.0 58.0 Early Replacement 20.2 18.1 16.2 13.8 10.7 8.2 6.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 Bulk Govt Purchase 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 **Projected Increase in Market Share (% )** 20262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039204020412042

11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0204320442045

11.7 11.7 11.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 58.0 58.0 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED GRAVES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1279 LKK GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 12, 2006, judgment was entered. On February

2, 2006, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. 

On April 5, 2006, petitioner filed a request for transcripts. Fed. R. App. P.

10(b)(1) provides that within ten days after filing the notice of appeal the appellant must order

from the court reporter a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file. 

Petitioner’s request is untimely as it was filed more than ten days after he filed his notice of

appeal. More importantly, no transcripts were prepared in this case. Therefore, all documents

necessary for appeal are already on file.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s April 5, 2006, request

for transcripts is denied.

DATED: 4/18/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

gr1279.tra

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Saitta J.

FISMESTIO 0f2ZOOMM (1991); State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). Therefore, extraordinary relief is not warranted, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons 

# 4 it:s J. Douglas
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

- SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANA VELENTE-HOOK,

NO. CIV. S-04-645 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE DISPOSAL

DOCUMENTS AFTER

EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTH CARE, NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

Defendant.

 /

Counsel for plaintiff has informed the court that the parties

have settled the above-captioned case. The court now orders that

the dispositional documents disposing of the case be filed no later

than thirty (30) days from the effective date of this order.

All hearing dates heretofore set in this matter are hereby

VACATED.

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00645-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL OR PARTIES WHO

CONTRIBUTED TO THE VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00645-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6561
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANA DEMONE BRINSON, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-11-V, CA-95-187-V) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana Demone Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brinson , Nos. CR-93-11-V; CA-95-187-V (W.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0776 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26,

2007, the court informed plaintiff that he must obtain additional information to effect service of

process on defendant R. Kelly, and that he could seek the information through California’s

Public Records Act. On March 12, 2007, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Priority Request for

Discovery,” seeking information about the whereabouts of R. Kelly pursuant to the provisions of

California’s Public Records Act. While plaintiff may, or may not, be entitled to the requested

information under a properly propounded discovery request pursuant to the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, a proceeding to enforce California’s Public Records Act is not properly brought

in this court. Such a request should be directed to the state agency having custody of the

information and any challenge to a decision on the request must be presented to the appropriate

state court. This court lacks jurisdiction to order the disclosure of information under California’s

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 78 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

laws. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 12, 2007, “Priority Request” is

denied.

Dated: March 27, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 78 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Kansas City Power &
Light Company (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), William H. Downey, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Terry Bassham, as Chief Financial Officer of 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 the best of his
knowledge:





(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.





/s/
      William H. DowneyName:
              Title:
            William
      H. Downey
              President
      and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
            February
      28, 2008/s/
      Terry BasshamName:
              Title:
            Terry
      Bassham
              Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
            February
      28, 2008





This
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 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.2 is
expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such
filing.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Kansas City Power & Light Company
and will be retained by Kansas City Power & Light Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6466

MICHAEL F. DEHONEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, SCDC Director; CHARLIE J.

CEPAK, Warden; WILLIAM R. DAVIS, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-1356-4-21BE)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eric Petersen, Larry

C. Batson, Sr., William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Dehoney v. Moore, No. CA-96-1356-4-21BE (D.S.C. Feb. 24, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
Case *No.*15,055.

#### UNITED STATES v. ERIE R. CO.

[Cited m Case No. 15.056. Nowhere reported; •opinion not now accessible.]
No. 62564.

#### Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Nucleonic Products *v.*United States,

protests 329977-K and 58/3343 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of television apparatus, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Zimbra Page 1 of2 

Zimbra rmaguire@norwoodma.gov 

Re: Boston Executive Helicopters Business Reference 

From :Russ Maguire, A.A.E. ,ACE 

<rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> 

Tue, May 11, 2010 09:49 PM 

Subject: Re: Boston Executive Helicopters Business 

Reference 

To :Peter Eichleay <peichleay@gmail.com> 

thanks peter . 

----- Original Message --- --

From : " Peter Eichleay" <peichleay@gmail.com> 

To: "Russ Maguire, A. A. E. ,ACE" <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> 

Cc : "christopher donovan" <christopherdonovan1@gmail.com> 

Sent : Tuesday , May 11 , 2010 5:40 : 15 PM GMT - 05 : 00 US/Canada 

Eastern 

Subject : Boston Executive Helicopters Business Reference 

Dear Russ , 

Please accept this email as a business reference for Boston 

Executive Helicopters, LLC (BEH), a startup helicopter charter 

company applying for a commercial permit to be based as OWD. BEH 

is run by Christopher Donovan , an experienced helicopter pilot 

who has done business with us at FlightLevel for years . 

I can confirm that BEH is a tenant of FlightLevel ' s (renting the 

Hangar 5 office) and has at least one aircraft based at the 

airport with plans for more . We are looking forward to a 

positive and mutually beneficial working relationship with BEH 

for many years to come and believe they will contribute 

postiviely to the airport community . 

Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to assist 

in their commercial permitting process . 

Thanks , Russ and my best regards, 

Peter 

Peter Eichleay 

FlightLevel Aviation - President 

125 Access Road 

Norwood , MA 02062 

https://ncs.norwoodma.gov/h/printmessage?id= 13056&tz=America/New _York 4/1 9/2015
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kent A. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KENT A. MURPHY                                        
|Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                          
|November 13, 2007.
No. 63097.

#### The Saxony Wool Corp. of New York *v.*United States,

protests 251665-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protests were dismissed.