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

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

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NDS                Group                plc. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August                  29, 2007 | /s/                  Abraham Peled                    |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Abraham                  Peled                        |
|                             | Chairman                  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                             |                                                  |
|                             |                                                  |
|                             | /s/                  Alexander Gersh                  |
|                             | Alexander                  Gersh                      |
|                             | Chief                  Financial Officer              |

----
No. 64213.

protest 59/17213 (New York).

#### Richter Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fried herring similar in all material respects to that the *477subject of *Richter Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C.C.P.A. 128, C.A.D. 649), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Source : Beck, M.B; Thompson, M; Ney , S; Gyawali, D; and Jeffrey , P . 2011. "On Governance for R e - engineering City Infrastructure." Procee dings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability , 2011, pp. 129

- 142 163(ES2)
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------



              Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
     As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      The  undersigned  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
my  knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September
30, 2004 of Universal Communication Systems,  Inc. (the "Company")  fully
complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information  contained in such
periodic report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial
condition and results of  operations  of the  Company as of, and for,  the
periods  presented  in such report.


 Date:  January 13, 2005                        /s/ Curtis Orgil
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Curtis Orgil
                                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                                 (Principal Financial and
                                                   Accounting Officer)
Dear Mr. Kerrigan:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition

(Docket No. FAA-2015-3394). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighterthan-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft 

manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/03/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael Cameron

Program Analyst
EX-31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CEO 

EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATION 

I, John D. Aquilino, Chief Executive Officer of ViaStar Holdings, Inc. certify that:
1. 
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ViaStar Holdings, 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report; 
4. 
The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] for the registrant and we 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  
b) 
[omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] 
c) 
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  
c) 
disclosed in this quarterly 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. 
The registrant's other certifying officer 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 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.     
Dated: November 24, 2003
By:
 
/s/ JOHN D. AQUILINO 
 
 **John D. Aquilino**
#### In the Matter of Salvatore and Catherine Pepe, a Partnership, Respondent, v Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, Inc., Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 490]

—In a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property, Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, Inc., appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered July 12, 1993, which granted the petition of Salvatore and Catherine Pepe, Partners, for possession of the subject premises and to recover arrears in rent in the sum of $68,010.05, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 17, 1993, which awards possession of the subject premises to Salvatore and Catherine Pepe, Partners, and is in favor of Salvatore and Catherine Pepe, Partners, in the sum of $74,125.93.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 12, 1993, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment entered August 17, 1993, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the order dated July 12, 1993, is vacated, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

*546The appeal from the intermediate order entered July 12, 1993, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the proceeding *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The landlord, Salvatore and Catherine Pepe, Partners, failed to meet the predicate requirements of a summary proceeding, which are either a demand for rent or at least three days’ written notice requiring payment of the rent due or possession of the premises, served in compliance with RPAPL 735 *(see,*RPAPL 711). This material noncompliance with the statute requires dismissal of the proceeding *(see, Stier v President Hotel,*28 AD2d 795; *Zenila Realty Corp. v Masterandrea,*123 Misc 2d 1; *Schwartz v Weiss-Newell,*87 Misc 2d 558; 2 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant—Summary Proceedings § 32:13, at 512 [3d ed]; *cf, Lanz v Lifrieri,*104 AD2d 400).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our disposition. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
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 IPEX, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald Beckwith, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


August 22, 2005                              /s/ Gerald Beckwith
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gerald Beckwith
                                            Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. VIVIAN PEMBERTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 18, 1964

Decided June 22, 1964.

*425
      *Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*County Prosecutor of Essex County, argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent *(Mr. Joseph G. Glavin, Jr.,*Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief; *Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*attorney).

*Mr. Maurice B. Siriclcland*argued the cause for defendant-appellant.

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Curiam.

Defendant, Dolores Barnes, and Katherine Hardy were indicted for the felony-murder of Clarence Pfister, Jr. Hardy pleaded *non vult*and testified for the State. Defendant and Barnes were convicted of the crime as charged, with a recommendation of life imprisonment. Defendant appeals to this Court pursuant to *B. B.*1:3-1 (c).

Defendant advanced four grounds for a reversal: (1) denial of her motion for acquittal at the end of the State’s case, (3) denial of her motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was the result of mistake, (3) the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence, and (4) the court erred in receiving her statement into evidence.

The evidence demonstrated that defendant and the two co-defendants were admitted prostitutes and users of heroin. They combined “to roll a drunk or pick a pocket or something” upon some undetermined victim. Hardy was armed with a knife. The deceased, who was intoxicated, encountered defendants on the street at about 4 A. m. They rejected his overtures to them toward their plying their trade. The defendants then began circling the deceased, patting him to determine if he had any money. The deceased slipped and fell. Hardy made a grab for his watch. When he regained his footing, he struck out, trying to fend off the three women. Hardy employed the knife, which she had in her hand, and *426dealt a lethal blow to the deceased, who collapsed on the sidewalk. The girls walked away.

There was sufficient evidence at the end of the State’s case to warrant the inference that defendant and the two codefendants intended and combined to commit robbery and that in the course of attempting to commit such a robbery the deceased was killed. The trial court properly charged the elements of the crime and the generally applicable law. The verdict at the close of the entire case was not against the weight of the evidence nor did it demonstrate that it was the result of mistake. Defendant’s statement was properly admitted, its voluntary nature having been established.

Affirmed.

*For affirmance*— -Chief Justice Weintbaub, and Justices Jacobs, Pkoctob, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.

*For reversal*— None.
#### Lewis R. Giacco, D.D.S., Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Dental Council and Examining Board, Respondent.

Argued May 7, 1981,

before President Judge Crumlish and Judges Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*Stanton D. Levenson,*for petitioner.

*Mary S. Wyatte,*Assistant Attorney General, with her, *John J. Flynn,*Assistant Attorney General, *James J. Kuts,*Chief Counsel, and *Harvey Bartle, III,*Attorney General, for respondent.

*409July 8, 1981:

Opinion by

Judge Crumlish,

Lewis R. Griacco appeals an order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board which revoked his license to practice dentistry. We affirm.

On January 30, 1979, Griacco pleaded guilty in the United States District Court to two record-keeping violations of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.1 The violations stemmed from Griacco’s practice of writing “quaalude” prescriptions for fictitious patients and then trading the quaaludes to finance his cocaine habit.2

After a Board hearing, Griacco’s license was revoked in accordance with Section 122(i) of the Dental Law,3 which provides for suspension *or*revocation of a license where the Board finds that a licensee “has been guilty of a crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. ...” Griacco does not contest the Board’s finding that he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. However, he contends that the Board abused its discretion by revoking his license considering that his conduct did not affect the health care of his patients. We disagree.

We have consistently held that fraud in the practice of a health care profession is not limited to conduct which directly affects the care of patients but encompasses “all aspects of professional conduct.” *Catena v. State Board of Medical Education and Licensure,*49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 542, 546, 411 A.2d 869, 871 (1980) (quoting) *State Dental Council and Examining Board v. Friedman,*27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546, 551, 367 A.2d 363, 366 (1976). Giaeeo did commit fraud by exploiting his professional position to obtain *410quaaludes,4 and this fraud was seriously compounded by trading the quaaludes for cocaine. We are painfully mindful of the horrendous consequences flowing to Dr. Giacco from the severity of the Board’s penalty decision, but, as a watchdog of the dental profession, the Board was well within its authority in revoking Giacco’s license.

Affirmed

Order

The State Dental Council and Examining Board order dated July 18, 1980, revoking the license of Lewis R. Giacco is affirmed.

1

21 U.S.C. §843(a) (4) and §842(a)(5).

2

 Giacco also traded Demerol, Tuinal and Dexedrine, to finance bis §1800.00 a week cocaine habit.

3

 Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 216, *as amended,*63 P.S. §122(i).

4

 In *Derrick v. Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs,*Pa. Commonwealth Ct. , 432 A.2d 282 (1981), we held that a nurse who wrote fictitious prescriptions to obtain controlled substances for his personal use committed fraud upon the nursing profession.
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 June 30, 2006
      (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
      14 th day of
      August 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 he retained by Upsnap, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
446 A.2d 693

#### Commonwealth v. Radogna, Appellant.

Submitted March 3, 1982.

Thomas S. McCready, for appellant; Richard W. Webb, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WIEAND, BECK and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 3 ,

2014.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00149

- CR

KALLUPPE DJUAN ALLEN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 6

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1902878

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal in this case, signed by

appellant, has been filed with this Court. See Tex. R. App

. P. 42.2. Because this

Court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant's request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the

Court to issue the mandate of the Court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
#### In the Matter of Estate of Edmund Lyons, *Deceased.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5100]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

[CBP Dec. 07-10]


Re-Approval of Petrospect, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of re-approval of Petrospect, Inc., of Honolulu, Hawaii, 
as a commercial gauger.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, 
Petrospect, Inc., 499 N. Nimitz Pier 21, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, has 
been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic 
chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with 
the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity 
for gauger services should request and receive written assurances from 
the entity that it is approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger services this 
entity is approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs 
and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also 
be sent to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/org_and_operations.xml.

DATES: The re-approval of Petrospect, Inc., as a commercial gauger 
became effective on August 22, 2006. The next triennial inspection date 
will be scheduled for August 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Bondoc, Ph.D, or Randall 
Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, 
Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: March 15, 2007.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director Laboratories and Scientific Services.
 [FR Doc. E7-5100 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### IN THE MATTER OF A. LEONARD BLUESTEIN, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

Argued March 20, 1962

Decided April 2, 1962.

*168
      *Mr. Bernard*Femberg, for the order.

Ho appearance for respondent.

Pee Cueiam.

Respondent, a member of the bar since 1942, was convicted in the Passaic County Court of (a) Making, drawing, uttering and delivering a check knowing that there were no funds in the bank to pay the same, in violation of *N. J. S. 2A:111-15;*(b) Eeloniously and falsely making, forging or counterfeiting the said check contrary to *N. J. S.*2A:109-1; (c) Eeloniously uttering and publishing as true the forged check knowing the same to be false or forged, contrary to *N. J. S. 2A*:109-1. The conviction and sentence were affirmed unanimously by the Appellate Division, and certification was denied by this court on October 10, 1961. 36 *N. J.*137 (1961).

An order of disbarment will be entered.

*For*disbarment—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Eeanois, Peo otoe, Hall, Schettino and Haneman—6.

Opposed—Hone.
May 7, 1956

Reap. Dec. 8581.

#### *Wm. E. Phillips Co.*v. *United States.*

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif. Reap. Dec. 8541. Motion by plaintiff.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 18 ) ll-K - (B)- 6 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:48 AM Sheet 18 of 325P. 2 

# n 

# P. "( 0 H-K-(B)- 6

DATA ASSUMPTION S I

N TH E IFCA M MODEL . Lette r fro

m K.F . Held , EE

A t o J . Pratapas , EPA:EAB . Jul y 26 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)- 6