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

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of TechAlt, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-KSB, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), David M. Otto,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ David M. Otto
-----------------------------
David M. Otto
Principal Executive Officer
May 19, 2006

/s/ David M. Otto
-----------------------------
David M. Otto
Principal Financial Officer
May 19, 2006

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TechAlt, Inc. and will be retained by TechAlt, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
EXHIBIT 32(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.
for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ Martin S. Lapera
---------------------------------------
Martin S. Lapera
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry L. Praylor, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 15]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree. His contention that the verdict rejecting his justification defense is contrary to the weight of the evidence lacks merit *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Evidence that the victim sustained numerous stab wounds, that defendant left the scene of the crime without reporting the incident to police, that defendant failed to retreat from the victim’s apartment, and that defendant was unable to explain how the victim was stabbed through the hand if she was, as claimed by defendant, holding a hammer, all support the court’s rejection of the justification defense *(see, People v Van Allen,*216 AD2d 39; *People v Longo,*182 AD2d 1019, *lv denied*80 NY2d 906; *People v Martinez,*144 AD2d 699, *lv denied*73 NY2d 923). We also reject the contention of defendant that, as a resident of the apartment, he had no duty to retreat. Although defendant had stayed in the apartment of the victim for a few days before the incident, he was there as her guest; *945the apartment was not his *(see, People v Van Allen, supra).*(Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.— Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
October 30 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CLAUDE KITTLES , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00619

- CV V.

VINTAGE PARK, L.P. , Appellee

______ __________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on July 24, 2014. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.
We further order tha t all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Claude Kittles.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<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 Quarterly Report of HLI Parent Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Curtis J. Clawson, President and 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, 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Curtis J. Clawson
-------------------------------
Curtis J. Clawson
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 10, 2003





                                       55
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Russell Ingledew, as Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

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

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

June 2, 2005


/s/ Russell Ingledew
----------------------------------
Russell Ingledew
Chief Financial Officer
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE McCAUSLAND, DECEASED. GEORGE H. McCAUSLAN, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. HUDSON TRUST CO., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Percy G. Britt*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Moser, Boveto & McGough*for the respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.
Case No. 9,830.

#### MORRIS et al. v. GARDNER.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 213.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1804.

Principal and Surety — Indobser on Note — Notice — Delay — Knowledge op Maker’s Insolvenct.

1. Notice to an indorser is necessary, unless he knew the maker to be insolvent at the time of indorsement.

2. Where the parties live within two miles of each other, nine days’ delay is fatal.

3. A subsequent promise by the defendant to pay, made with a full knowledge of his discharge, will bind him.

Assumpsit against the defendant [John ‘Gardner] as indorser of a note of Anderson; and for goods sold and delivered; and for money had and received; and upon an as-sumpsit in writing to pay seventy dollars for Anderson. The evidence was that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs [B. W. Morris and others] for goods sold; and gave and indorsed to the plaintiffs Anderson’s note for a smaller amount than the debt due for the goods, which note was to be collected by plaintiffs, and when received, the money was to be applied to the credit of the defendant. The note became payable 9.and 12 July, 1802. The plaintiffs received on the 21st of July, forty dollars in part No notice was given to the defendant of non-payment, until after the receipt of the forty dollars; The defendant lived in Washington. The plaintiffs’ agent, who held the note, lived in Georgetown. Aft-erwards, and after the note was payable, and after the payment of the forty dollars, to wit, at last term, the plaintiffs recovered judg-

*818ment against the defendant for the balance of the account of goods sold, after deducting the .amount of the note. Gardner said, at the 'time of indorsing the note, that he expected that it would be difficult to get the money of Anderson, but the plaintiffs could get it better than he could.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Upon the first count, (which is on the note,)

THE COURT

gave the following instruction: That it is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that a demand was made on Anderson, the maker, and notice of his refusal given to Gardner, the indorser, in due time, unless it should appear that Anderson was insolvent when the note was indorsed and delivered to the plaintiffs, and was known by Gardner to be so: That the defendant, Gardner, was discharged from his liability by .the want of such demand and notice, but that his assumption would make him again liable, if made under a knowledge of the facts and of the law as to his being discharged: And, further, that if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant lived in the city of Washington, and the plaintiffs’ agent in Georgetown, the distance being about two miles, notice to the defendant, given nine days after the last day of grace, was not reasonable notice.

Verdict for plaintiffs.

Quaere. See De Berdt v. Atkinson, 2 H. Bl. 336, and Nicholson v. Gouthit, Id. 609, as to the necessity of notice in case of known insolvency.
EXHIBIT
      32




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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Tony Philipp, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Schmidt, the
      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of UPSNAP, INC. (the "Company"), DO HEREBY
      CERTIFY that:





1.  The
      Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31,
      2005 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 14th
      day of February 2006.








/s/
      Tony Philipp________________


Tony
      Philipp


Chief
      Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)





/s/
      Paul Schmidt________________


Paul
      Schmidt


Chief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      UpSnap, Inc. and will be retained by Upsnap, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### HAROLD E. FERGER, *ET ALS.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. LOCAL 483 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A.F.L.-C.I.O., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 97 *N. J. Super.*505.

*Messrs. Par sonnet, Par sonnet & Duggan*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Bracken & Walsh*for the respondents.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Frederick CountyBancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, I, Martin S. Lapera,President and Chief Executive Officer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 

 

 
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
CERTIFICATIONS

I, JOSEPH BATTY, certify,  pursuant to Rule 13a-4 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
with respect to the Annual Report of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex
Corporation) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2004 ("Report") that:

(1) I have reviewed this Report;

(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 1-900 Jackpot, Inc.
(formerly  Pultronex  Corporation) 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-14 and  15d-14)  for 1-900
Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex  Corporation) and I have: (a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material  information relating
to 1-900 Jackpot,  Inc. (formerly Pultronex  Corporation) is made known to me by
others,  particularly  during the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex
Corporation)'s  disclosure  controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior  to the  filing  date of this  Report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and (c)
presented  in  this  Report  my  conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of  the
disclosure  controls and procedures  based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

(5) I have disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation,  to our auditors and
the audit  committee  of our  board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent  function):  (a)  all  significant  deficiencies  in  the  design  or
operation  of  internal  controls  which could  adversely  affect our ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for our
auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal  controls;  and (b) any fraud,
whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in our internal controls; and





DATE:   NOVEMBER 22, 2005

BY:      /S/ JOSEPH BATTY
      ---------------------------
             JOSEPH BATTY
    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
# C_2007047EN.01000401.xml

| 1.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 47/05)

| Date of adoption of the decision | — |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 497/06 |
| Member State | Czech Republic |
| Region | Olomoucký kraj |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Přerov Městský Dům – IMIT s.r.o. |
| Legal basis | Contracts ad hoc |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Promotion of Culture |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: CZK 5,69 million |
| Intensity | Measure does not constitute aid |
| Duration | 1.7.2006-31.12.2007 |
| Economic sectors | Culture |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Město Přerov, Bratrská 34, CZ-750 11 Přerov |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

—

Reference number of the aid

N 497/06

Member State

Czech Republic

Region

Olomoucký kraj

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Přerov Městský Dům – IMIT s.r.o.

Legal basis

Contracts ad hoc

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Promotion of Culture

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: CZK 5,69 million

Intensity

Measure does not constitute aid

Duration

1.7.2006-31.12.2007

Economic sectors

Culture

Name and address of the granting authority

Město Přerov, Bratrská 34, CZ-750 11 Přerov

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
No. 56492.

protests 145440-K, etc. (New York).

#### Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States,

*430Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven fabrics in the piece, wholly of silk, bleached, and valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those-passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Oust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

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

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Worldspan, L.P. (the “Company”) Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Rakesh Gangwal,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kevin W.Mooney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

 

(1).                                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(2).                                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | August  10, 2005 |   | By:    |   | /s/  Rakesh Gangwal                              |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   |   |   | Rakesh  Gangwal                                  |
|   |             |   |   |   | Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |             |   |   |   |                                             |
| Date:  | August  10, 2005 |   | By:    |   | /s/  Kevin W. Mooney                             |   |
|   |             |   |   |   | Kevin  W. Mooney                                 |
|   |             |   |   |   | Chief  Financial Officer                         |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### E. L. Stivers *v.*United States

No. 6291.

Entry No. 214-H, etc.

Invoices dated Monterrey, Mexico, November 30, 1943.

Entered at Hidalgo, Tex., December 7, 1943, etc.

(Decided July 17, 1946)

*Ramon L. Longoria; Vernon B. Hill; William Whynman,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spedor*and *Joseph E. Weil,*special attorneys), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

These are appeals for reappraisement of Pineret Alma Clips or bobby pins imported from Mexico on December 3, 1943. The merchandise was invoiced at 15 pesos per carton plus packing charges and invoice stamps and was entered at 18 pesos per carton plus packing charges and 0.88 per centum stamp tax. It was appraised at 25 pesos per carton of 1,728 clips, net, less freight, aforo, Mexican customs broker’s fee, and consular invoice fee.

At the hearing on March 22, 1946, on motion by the plaintiff it was ordered that the record heretofore made be entirely deleted and it was stipulated as follows:

> Mr. Whynman. The merchandise in these cases consisted of bobby pins imported from Mexico, made of steel, and we stipulate that the price at which this imported merchandise was freely offered for sale in Mexico was 19.25 pes.os a great gross, Mexican currency, plus 0.88 per centum sales tax a great gross, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States and at which *258such, or similar merchandise was freely offered for. sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the Ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States.

> Mr. Weil. So agreed.

> Mr. Whynman. That the foreign value was higher than the export value of ■this merchandise.

> Mr. Weil. So agreed and stipulated.

On the agreed state of facts, I hold that the foreign value is the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise and that such value is 19.25 pesos a great gross, Mexican currency, plus 0.88 per centum sales tax. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.