alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      Sec.1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of O2Diesel Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the
      “Report”), I, Alan Rae, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, David H.
      Shipman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      September 25, 2008




By:
            
            /s/
                Alan Rae
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                David H. ShipmanName:
            
            Alan
                Rae
            
            Name:
            
            David
                H. ShipmanTitle:
            
            Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
            
            Title:
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)




This
      certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the
      requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not
      be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than
      as
      specifically required by law.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to O2Diesel Corporation and will be retained by O2Diesel Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
No. 53230.

#### Wm. Cooper & Nephews, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 52531-K/90206, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.1
                                                                COMMON STOCK

   NUMBER                                                          SHARES
---------------                                             --------------------
                              [LOGO of ORATEC]

---------------                                             --------------------
                                                            SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR
                                                            CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
                                                            CUSIP 68554M 10 8

             INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

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

THIS CERTIFIES THAT



IS THE OWNER OF

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

                    FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF
                 COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF


                          ORATEC Interventions, Inc.

transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or
by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly
endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer
Agent and registered by the Registrar.

       WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
signatures of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:



                      [ORATEC INTERVENTIONS, INC. SEAL]


     /S/ Nancy V. Westcott                           /s/ Kenneth W. Anstey


        SECRETARY                                           PRESIDENT

CONTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
        AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
                (NEW YORK, N.Y.)
                        TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR


                                     AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6382

KEITH L. FITZGERALD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LORETTA KELLY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:09-cv-00155-jct-mfu)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith L. Fitzgerald, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Fitzgerald seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Fitzgerald has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, although we grant Fitzgerald’s motion to amend his 

informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case No. 15,230.

#### UNITED STATES v. GOOSELY.

[1 Burr’s Trial, 222.]

Circuit Court, D. Virginia.1

Witness—Refusal to Answeu—Possibility of Crimination.

[Cited in argument in U. S. v. Burr, Case No. 14,692e, to the point that a witness is not bound to answer a question which might possibly crimi-nate him.]

Goosely was indicted for felony, under the 16th and 17th sections of the act of congress establishing the post-office and post-roads within the United States, for robbing the mail of some bank-notes.

On his trial, the attorney for the United States called Reynolds, an accomplice with the person, against whom an indictment for the offence had been preferred, but which had been- found “not a true bill” by the grand jury.

*1364Randolph & Wickham, counsel for the .prisoner,

objected to his testimony, on the principle that the witness was not bound to give any evidence which might implicate himself. ■

■ The attorney admitted the general principle, but denied its application, and insist■ed that he might give evidence.

1

 [Date not given.]

THE COURT

determined, “that he was a competent witness;’’ but IREDELL, Circuit Justice, observed "(and GRIFFIN, District Judge, concurred) that “he could not be compelled to answer a question leading to an implication of himself; and that it was very probable that the jury would pay but little attention to a fact, which they were satisfied was but partially related. He was asked, whether he knew of any bank-notes being taken out of the mail by the prisoner. He answered, none, but what he was jointly concerned in. The court said he was not bound to tell anything that might “tend to criminate himself.”

The jury returned a verdict for the prisoner of not guilty, and he was discharged.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  308,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,300
<INVENTORY>                                    134,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               461,466
<PP&E>                                         865,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                 457,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,251,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,202
<BONDS>                                        348,647
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,764
<OTHER-SE>                                     509,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,251,129
<SALES>                                        407,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,813
<CGS>                                          288,876
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  372,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   628
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,486
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,486
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
### Hydrology of aquifer systems in the Memphis area, Tennessee

By: James H. CrinerP-C. P. SunDale J. Nyman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1779O

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 48149.

#### Protests 40376-K, etc., of Aron Novelty Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) the protests were sustained as to this item. -
No. 44283.

#### Protests 577104-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131854 & (24) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131854 

 COA: 267481 

Lapeer CC: 00-007103-FC 

JEFFREY ALAN MAXON, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of December 13, 2006, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer 

the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we REMAND this case to the Lapeer Circuit Court for resentencing. The defendant was 

sentenced under the judicial sentencing guidelines even though all of the offenses he was 

convicted of occurred after the effective date of the legislative sentencing guidelines, 

MCL 777.1, et seq. On remand, the Lapeer Circuit Court shall sentence the defendant 

within the appropriate legislative sentencing guidelines range, or articulate on the record 

a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines range in 

accordance with People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003). In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0131 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 7, 2007 

 Clerk
No. 39083.

#### Protests 416241-G, etc., of Henri Bendel, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.1





TRC COMPANIES, INC.





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of TRC Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 25, 2011 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:May 4, 2011/s/   Christopher P. VinczeChristopher P. VinczeChief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hastings Entertainment, 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;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date:  April 20, 2006
    /s/ Dan CrowDan CrowVice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 11.1   


                                   COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                          Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                        (Unaudited)


                                         Six months             Quarter
                                      ended January 31,     ended January 31,
                                            
                                      1996      1995        1996      1995   


Loss from continuing operations   $ (305,433)$ (401,225)$ (131,225)$ (211,121)
Income from operations of
  discontinued operation                  --    108,903         --     49,764

Net loss applicable to
  common stock                    $ (305,433)$ (292,322)$ (131,225)$ (161,357)


Common and common equivalent
  shares -
    primary:
  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding             5,822,271  5,802,885  5,830,591  5,806,994
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock options         30,664*   122,378*    57,610*    64,874*
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock warrants         2,489*    43,818*    23,492*    46,590*
  Weighted average number of
    common and common equivalent
    shares outstanding             5,855,424  5,969,081  5,911,693  5,918,458

Common and common equivalent
    shares - fully diluted:
  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding             5,822,271  5,802,885  5,830,591  5,806,994
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock options        73,016*    129,094*    73,016*    64,874*
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock warrants        7,397*     46,222*    35,385*    46,590*
  Weighted average number of
    common and common
    equivalent shares
    outstanding                   5,902,684   5,978,201  5,938,992  5,918,458

Loss from continuing operations
    per share of common stock:
      Primary and fully diluted  $    (0.05)  $   (0.07) $   (0.02)$    (0.04)
Income from operations of
  discontinued operation per
  share of common stock:
      Primary and fully diluted          --        0.02         --       0.01
Net loss per share of common stock:
    Primary and fully diluted    $    (0.05) $    (0.05) $   (0.02)$    (0.03)


* Anti-dilutive.




These calculations are submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601
(b) (11) which differs from the requirements of paragraph 40 of Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 15 because they produce an anti-dilutive result.
Exhibit No. 15





August 12, 1999



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 12, 1999 on our
review of interim financial information of UniSource
Energy Corporation (the Company) and Tucson Electric Power
Company (TEP) for the period ended June 30, 1999 and
included in the Company's and TEP's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by
reference in the Company's Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-43765, 333-43767 and 333-43769, 333-53309,
333-53333 and 333-53337), on Form S-3 (No. 333-31043), and
on Form S-4 (No. 333-60809) and in Amendment No. 1 to
TEP's Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-64143).

Yours very truly,




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
**Shenzhen      Ping An Bank**

**Loan      Certificate **

| Applicant                         |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd                          |                     | ID                card of the Applicant       |   |          |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------|
| Currency                          |   | RMB                                                                   |                     | Amount                                        |   | 55,000,000.00 |
| Loan                Term          |   | From                October 22, 2007 to October 22, 2008              |
| Usage                             |   | Working                Capital                                        |
| Annual                rate        |   | 6.561%                                                                | Loan                type | Short-term                                    |
| Reference                Contract |   | Shen                shangyin (Shuibei) Shouxinzi (2007) A110020700007 |
| Stamp                of Applicant |   |                                                                  |                     | Stamp                of Shenzhen Ping An Bank |   |          |

----