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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
Delbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of June, 2008.


/s/ Scott Delbeck
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 13.2



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



In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Chartwell  Technology  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 20-F for the year ended  October 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Don
Gleason, 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.


                                        Signed "Don Gleason"
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Don Gleason
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        May 16, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7832

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MAURICE EDGAR MCKENZIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-4700-9; CR-97-32)

Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Edgar McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Edgar McKenzie seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that McKenzie has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McKenzie’s motion for 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
No. 47360.

#### Protests 984317-G, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
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

JOHN C. MONTUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2663 LKK JFM P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 31, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations together with a request for release on

his own recognizance or reasonable bail.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 28 Filed 07/20/06 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

by proper analysis. The findings and recommendations will therefore be adopted in full and this

action will be dismissed. As this action will be dismissed, petitioner’s request for release on his

own recognizance or reasonable bail will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 21, 2006 request for release on his own recognizance or

reasonable bail is denied;

2 The findings and recommendations filed March 31, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

3. This action is dismissed

DATED: July 20, 2006.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mont2663.805hc

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 28 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2
September 22,2008 

### Mr. James I. Palmer, Jr. Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsythe Street, 

### S.W. Environmental Protection Division Air Protection Branch 4244 International Parkway Suite 120 Atlanta Georgia 30354 4041363-7000 Fax: 4041363-7100 iolcomb,

..Couch. Commissioner Ph.D., Director

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

### RE: SIP Element Under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(G) Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard Dear 

### Mr. Palmer: EPA Region 4 contacted the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on September 18, 2008 via telephone regarding Georgia EPD's letter to EPA Region 4 dated July 23, 2008.' The telephone conversation pertained to CAA section 110(a)(2)(G),whether Georgia EPD would be required to submit an emergency episode plan for PM2,5,and whether Georgia would have existing authority to administer such a plan. The federal requirement is based on a priority region classification2. EPA Region 4 acknowledged that the agency has not yet proposed a PM2,5 classification scheme. EPA Region 4 informed Georgia EPD that EPA Headquarters is considering an ambient concentration threshold of 140.5 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3)on a 24-hour basis as the threshold for requiring the development of an emergency episode plan for PM2,5 (i.e., regions 

### in the state would be classified as Priority I11 if such an ambient threshold was not exceeded during the most recent three years worth of ambient data13. Based on such criteria, air quality control regions in Georgia would be classified as Priority I11 (based on calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007) if EPA proposed and promulgated such an ambient concentration classification scheme. This classification would exempt Georgia EPD fiom adopting an Emergency Episode Plan for PM2.5and Georgia EPD's State Implementation Plan would fulfill the 

### CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for PM2.5. Pursuant to Georgia Rule for Air Quality Control Act: Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et. seq.) Georgia EPD is authorized to implement emergency air pollution episode measures. If you have any questions, please contact Jimmy Johnston at 404-363-7014 or via e-mail at



### .. 

### jlmrny.johnston@,dnr.state.na.us. 

## ' Letterfrom Dr. Carol Couch (GA EPD) to Mr. Jimmy Palmer, Jr. (EPA Region 4) regarding SIPElements Under CleanAirAct Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) 

### - Fine ParticulateMatter National Ambient AirQuality Standard. Implementing regulationfor CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) is 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart H. A PMt.5ambient concentrationof 140.5 mglm3 on a 24-hour basis would correspondto an AQI Category of "Unhealthyn or Code Red based on ; however, the agency issued a paper for discussion on February 12,2007 that add;essed EPA's "initialthoughts" about possible revisions to the Air Quality Index (AQI) and Significant Harm Level (SHL) for PM2.~.Jimmy Palmer, Jr. September 22,2008 Page 2

Sincerely,

Carol 

### A. Couch Director CAC: JJ:JK:sj



### c: Dick Schutt,EPA Region 

### TV LynoraeBenjamin, EPA Region

### IV Chuck Mueller Susan

### Jenkins
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4801 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude discharge of coerced 

indebtedness from gross income. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2024 

Ms. SMITH (for herself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

discharge of coerced indebtedness from gross income. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Relief for Coerced 

5 Debt Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF DISCHARGED OF COERCED INDEBT7 EDNESS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 108 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new subsection: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4801 IS

1 ‘‘(j) TREATMENT OF DISCHARGE OF COERCED IN2 DEBTEDNESS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an indi4 vidual, gross income does not include any amount 

5 which (but for this subsection) would be includible in 

6 gross income by reason of the discharge (in whole or 

7 in part) of coerced indebtedness. 

8 ‘‘(2) COERCED INDEBTEDNESS.—For purposes 

9 of this subsection— 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Indebtedness of an in11 dividual shall be treated as coerced indebted12 ness if— 

13 ‘‘(i) the indebtedness, or any portion 

14 thereof, was incurred— 

15 ‘‘(I) as the result of the unknow16 ing and unauthorized use of personal 

17 identifying information of the indi18 vidual, or 

19 ‘‘(II) by reason of economic 

20 abuse, intimidation, harassment, 

21 threat of force, force, fraud, decep22 tion, coercion, undue influence, or 

23 other similar means, and 

24 ‘‘(ii) the individual is relieved of per25 sonal liability for the debt or any obligaVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:52 Aug 22, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4801.IS S4801

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4801 IS

1 tion to the creditor or other claimants pur2 suant to a court judgement. 

3 ‘‘(B) ECONOMIC ABUSE.—The term ‘eco4 nomic abuse’ means behavior, without regard to 

5 the relationship context in which such behavior 

6 occurs, which is otherwise described in section 

7 40002(a)(13) of the Violence Against Women 

8 Act of 1994, and includes interference with the 

9 individual’s ability to work. 

10 ‘‘(3) REPORTING AND FILING REQUIRE11 MENTS.—The Secretary shall ensure that no addi12 tional reporting or filing requirements are imposed 

13 on the individual with respect to the exclusion under 

14 this subsection.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this section shall apply to discharges of indebtedness after 

17 December 31, 2023. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4791 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the consideration of 

continuity of health care in determining best medical interest under 

the Veterans Community Care Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2024 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. MORAN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. 

TILLIS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. THUNE, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. 

SCOTT of Florida, and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the consideration of continuity of health care in determining best 

medical interest under the Veterans Community Care 

Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Continuity 

5 in Veterans Health Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4791 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUITY OF HEALTH CARE 

2 UNDER VETERANS COMMUNITY CARE PRO3 GRAM. 

4 Section 1703(d)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(F) Continuity of care.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

David L. Fulbright,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2490 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

D. L. Runnels,

Respondent.

-oOoJanuary 5, 2006, petitioner requested an extension of time

to file and serve objections to findings and recommendations. 

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s request is granted and time is

extended until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: January 10, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 9 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Principal Financial 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 the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/Kimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottKimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottPrincipal Financial OfficerAugust 16, 2010
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-

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

RICHARD A. LATTERELL

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044-0683

Telephone: (202) 307-6422

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

Email: Richard.A.Latterell@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - AT SACRAMENTO

DAVID S. SAVAGE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Counterclaim Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DAVID S. SAVAGE and PHYLISS SAVAGE, )

)

Counterclaim Defendants. )

)

)

Civil No. CIV.S-04-2316 WBS KJM

STIPULATED APPLICATION FOR

EXTENSION OF HEARING ON

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 

(SECOND REQUEST) AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Currently before the Court is defendant the United States of America's Motion for

Summary Judgment against Plaintiff David Savage. The hearing on said motion is currently set

for January 9, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. (PST) in Courtroom 5. The parties respectfully apply and

hereby stipulate, pursuant to LR 83-143 and LR 6-144, to an extension of time to continue the

hearing to Monday, January 23, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 before the Honorable Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02316-WBS -KJM Document 34 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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-

Shubb. This is the Parties' second application for an extension of time. The extension is

requested due to counsel for the United States’ work conflicts during the week of January 9 ,

th

2006. 

Respectfully submitted this 3 day of January, 2006. rd

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

 /s/ Richard A. Latterell 

RICHARD A. LATTERELL

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Post Office Box 683

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 307-6422

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

Email: Richard.A.Latterell@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

 /s/ Robert R. Rubin 

ROBERT R. RUBIN, ESQ.

McDonough Holland & Allen PC

555 Capitol Mall, 9th floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 444-3900

Facsimile: (916) 444-8334

Email: brubin@mhalaw.com

Attorney for plaintiff

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-02316-WBS -KJM Document 34 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -3-

Case 2:04-cv-02316-WBS -KJM Document 34 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2022

No. 04

- 20

- 00569

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO by and through The San Antonio Water System,

Appellant

v.

CAMPBELLTON ROAD, LTD,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texa s

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 13949

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is

GRANTED. Any motion for rehearing filed by appellee is due March 14, 2022.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Jus tice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of February, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRU Z

, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Nos. 333-89872, 333-37986 and 333-20405 on Form S-8 of our report dated****September 2, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Koss Corporation and Subsidiary, which includes an explanatory paragraph related to legal matters described in Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements, as of and for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Koss Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2011.

 

 

/s/ BAKER TILLY VIRCHOW KRAUSE, LLP

 

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

September 2, 2011

 

----
No. 55982.

protests 159140-K and 161587-K (Minneapolis).

#### The Dayton Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### In the Matter of Loretta D., Appellant, v Commissioner of Social Services et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 381]

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the paternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Martinez-Perez, J.), dated November 18, 1993, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition for visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Family Court’s determination that visitation would not be in the child’s best interests, and we decline to disturb that determination on appeal *(see, Matter of Emanuael S. v Joseph E.,*78 NY2d 178; *Lo Prestí v Lo Prestí,*40 NY2d 522).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 75-6816.

#### Weiland *v.*Parratt, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Linda Smith, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 404]

—Appeal by the defen*575dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered March 21, 1994, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report**
 
1994 | 1998 | 1999
 
SuDoc Number:I 20.61/5:
Item Number:0627-A-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000588504
 
February 12, 2020
CARY AUSTIN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4603

Opinion filed December 22, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Cary Austin, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 

807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

OSTERHAUS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

   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 Diversified Thermal Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, B. Grant Hunter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.

April 14, 2006                       /s/ B. Grant Hunter
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     B. Grant Hunter
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer