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

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 Manhattan Scientifics, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marvin Maslow, Chief Executive
Officer, President and the person performing similar functions to the 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 of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:

(1) 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
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 Manhattan Scientifics, Inc. and
will be retained by Manhattan Scientifics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                    /s/ Marvin Maslow
                                    -------------------------
                                    Marvin Maslow
                                    Chief Executive Officer, President and
                                    Principal Financial Officer


February 18, 2004
#### MARY HOWARD, RESPONDENT, v. ESSEX MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following *per curiam*was filed:

“This is a suit on a life benefit certificate. The only question is whether the premium was paid a day before or a day after the death of the assured. This is a question of fact and we cannot review the finding of the trial judge, since there was evidence that it was paid the day before. The fact that premiums were in arrears at the time of payment is of no importance, as there is nothing in the certificate which makes it void for non-payment of dues.

“Let the judgment be affirmed, with costs.”

For the appellant, *Edward R. McGlynn*

For the respondent, *Arthur B. Seymour.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed August 31, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01023-CR

ANTHONY DESHAWN JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-52344-I

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Brown and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Anthony Deshawn Johnson pleaded guilty to attempted evading arrest in a motor vehicle. 

In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years’ 

confinement in a state jail facility. Appellant waived his right to appeal as part of the agreement. 

See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The trial court certified 

that appellant does not have the right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Dears v. State, 

154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

151023F.U05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ANTHONY DESHAWN JOHNSON, 

Appellant

No. 05-15-01023-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-52344-I.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Brown 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 31st day of August, 2015.
#### In the Matter of Edward Roberts.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Frederick Vandenberg, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. for the
year ended August 31, 2008 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 the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. (the Company)

| | By:    | /s/Fred Vandenberg     
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Frederick Vandenberg   
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | December 1, 2008       

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-KSB. A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 10934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF 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 on Form 10-Q of American Defense Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony J. Piscitelli, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and Gary Sidorsky, 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 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, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 23, 2011





/s/ Anthony J. PiscitelliAnthony J. PiscitelliPresident and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Gary SidorskyGary SidorskyChief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, John N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portec Rail Products, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
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)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    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.
    
    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; andb)
    
    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.
 November 14, 2006
    
    /s/ John N. PesarsickDate
    
    John N. PesarsickChief Financial Officer
[ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Jenkins , Slip Opinion No. 2022

- Ohio

- 4731.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2022

- O HIO
- 4731
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELL ANT , v . J ENKINS , A PPELL EE . [ Until this opini on appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Jenkins , Slip Opinion No. 2022

- Ohio

- 4731 .] Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Bourn and cause remanded for further proceedings

. (No. 202 2

- 029 7 ―Submitted November 29 , 2022―Decided December 30 , 2022.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,

No. 109421, 2022

- Ohio

- 297.

_________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Bourn , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022

- Ohio

- 4321 , __ N.E.3d __
, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , and D E W INE , JJ., concur. D ONNELLY and S TEWART , JJ., would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently allowed.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 B RUNNER , J., dissents for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in
Bourn

.

_________________ Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

_________________
No. 38944.

#### Petition 5572-R of P. H. Volk & Co., Inc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Being satisfied that the entry was made without .any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts, the court granted the petition.
No. 57399.

protest 191773-K (Philadelphia).

#### Chas. Kurz Co. *v.*United States,

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.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0034 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-SW-006-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14849-14850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain 
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is 
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory 
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the 
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Wallowa Union Railroad

(Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2007-27413)

    The Wallowa Union Railroad Authority (WURR) seeks a waiver of 
compliance from certain provisions of the Safety Glazing Standards, 49 
CFR part 223 that requires certified glazing for three self-propelled 
rail diesel cars. The WURR operates as an excursion railroad at speeds 
not exceeding 30 miles per hour and in primarily rural areas.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings 
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate 
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since 
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party 
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in 
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for 
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the 
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver

[[Page 14850]]

Petition Docket Number 2007-27413) and must be submitted to the Docket 
Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 
7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 
45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before 
final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be 
considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning 
these proceedings are available for examination during regular business 
hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the 
public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the 
Internet at the docket facility's Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement 
may also be found at http://dms.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2007.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
 [FR Doc. E7-5747 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
No. 46818.

#### Protest 993398-G of Ballmill Lumber Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that no addition should have been made to the imported quantity for planing, tonguing, and grooving. The protest was therefore sustained.
No. 47963.

#### Protest 94135-K of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilsqn, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the mufflers in question, having been imported subsequent to the effective date of the said trade agreement, were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1209 and T. D. 49753, as claimed.
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of Virginia
Commerce Bancorp, Inc. and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-68576, 333-68578 and 333-68580) of our report, dated February 20, 2004,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc.
as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001.

/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, PC

Winchester, Virginia
March 12, 2004
| | KPMG LLP              | Telephone | (780) 429-7300
| | --------------------- | --------- | --------------
| | Chartered Accountants | Fax       | (780) 429-7379
| | 10125 – 102 Street    | Internet  | www.kpmg.ca   
| | Edmonton AB  T5J 3V8  |           |               
| | Canada                |           |               





Consent of
independent registered public accounting firm



To the Board of Directors of The Cash Store
Financial Services Inc.



We consent to the inclusion in this annual
report on Form 40-F of:



| | ─ | our Independent Auditors’ Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated November 16,
2011, except for the restatement discussed in Note 3, which is as of May
24, 2013,on the consolidated balance sheets of The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. as at September 30, 2011 and 2010,
the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, retained earnings and cash flows for the year ended September
30, 2011 and the fifteen months ended September 30, 2010, and notes, comprising a summary of accounting policies and other explanatory
information, and
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ─ | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated November 16, 2011,except for the effect of the material weaknesses described in Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting, which is as of May 24, 2013on the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2011.
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Signed “KPMG LLP”



Chartered Accountants

Edmonton, Canada

May 24, 2013





| | KPMG LLP, is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG         
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
| | KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
#### Baker Whisnant v. Esther Draughon, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida.

176 So. 564.

Division A.

Opinion Filed October 7, 1937.

*F. Lynn Gerald,*for Appellant;

*Henderson & Franklin,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from a final decree dismissing a bill of complaint which attempted to effectuate the same purpose as the bill in James Messer v. Paul V. Lang, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, *et al.,*decided this date. The pleadings and the questions raised in the two cases are identical.

The judgment below is accordingly affirmed on authority of the last cited case.

Affirmed..

Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., dissents.