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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         I, Kent H. Harle, Chief Executive Officer of Redline Performance
Products, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, that to my knowledge:

                  (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
                           fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed
                           with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
                           "report"), fully complies with the requirements of
                           Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 operations of the Company.

Date:  November 14, 2003                              /s/ Kent H. Harle
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Kent H. Harle
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
or as separate disclosure documents. A signed original of this written statement
has been provided to Redline Performance Products, Inc. and will be retained by
Redline Performance Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-56123) pertaining to the Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. 1997 Employee
Incentive Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-56127) pertaining to the 1997 Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. Outside Director
Stock Option Plan of our report dated November 28, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2004.

/s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
January 7, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002,  each  of  the  undersigned   officers  of  Hugo
International Telecom, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies that:

1. The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the Six months ended
June 30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

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



By:          /S/ Kevin Kreisler
             ----------------------------------
By:              Kevin Kreisler
                 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Date:            January 24, 2006


This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
No. 47760.

#### Protests 926488-G, etc., of Sanes Hat Co., Inc. (New York).

OpinioD by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the items consist of Racello hats or hoods, not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, and not blocked or trimmed, similar to those involved in Abstract 47291, the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42217-42218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20598]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 61

[CC Docket Nos. 94-1; FCC 96-488]


Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the summary of the 
Commission's Report and Order reforming access charges published in the 
Federal Register of January 31, 1997 (62 FR 4657).

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lerner, Attorney, Common 
Carrier Bureau, Competitive Pricing Division, (202) 418-1520, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5978980978b8097a5838686cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e89a848d9a868d9aa88e8b8bc68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission published a summary of the 
Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers Third Report 
and Order (released December 24, 1996) in the Federal Register issue of 
January 31, 1997, in FR Doc. 97-2143 (62 FR 4657). The summary outlines 
an order that adopts rules that are intended to make it easier for 
local exchange carriers to introduce new services and to lower rates. 
This summary was published with

[[Page 42218]]

a clerical mistake, which this document corrects. The publication on 
January 31, 1997 of the Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange 
Carriers Third Report and Order summary (62 FR 4657), which was the 
subject of FR Doc. 97-2143, is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 4659, in the third column, Sec. 61.49, lines 3 and 4, 
replace ``paragraphs (e) through (k) as paragraphs (d) through (j)'' 
with ``paragraphs (e) through (l) as paragraphs (d) through (k).

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20598 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Larry Darnell JOBE and Bruce Wayne Moore v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49526.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 2, 1977.

George M. Simmerman, Pascagoula, for appellants.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by John C. Ellis, Special Asst. Atty. Gen. and Karen A. Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appel-lee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Merle F. Palmer, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

GILLESPIE, C. J., INZER, P. J., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and LEE, JJ., concur.
#### THOMPSON v. PATTERSON.

October 14, 1837.

*2Zule to show cause why the writ of summons should not he quashed.*

The issuing of a summons in *this court,*returnable on the Saturday preceding the first Monday (the beginning) of the term is bad, and will be quashed.

The 31st section of the act of 13th of June, 1836, providing for the-issuing of a summons, returnable on the day next preceding the last day of the term succeeding the day of the issuing, does not apply to the process of this court. (See note as to other courts of Pennsylvania.)

THIS was a writ of summons issued to September term, 1837. It issued on the 28th day of August, which was less than ten days before the first day of the next term, *i. e.*September term, and was made returnable on the second day of December, *i. e.*the Saturday preceding the first day (Monday) of December term. The defendant obtained this rule to show cause why the writ should not be quashed.

*Meredith,*for the rule.

*0. Thompson,*contra,

referred to the act of 13th June, 1836, sectionSl, *(Stroud’s Purd. lit. Action,)*which provides that in case of a writ of summons, if there be not ten days between the issuing thereof and the first day of the next term of the court, the writ may be made returnable on the day next preceding the last day of such term, or upon the first day of the second term next after the issuing of the writ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Jones, J.—

We are reluctant to quash process for informality, but in this case it cannot be avoided. The return day appointed in this writ is not authorized by the act of assembly referred to. By the act of 30th March, 1811, section 4, four terms are appointed to this court, to begin on the first Monday of June, the first Monday of September, the first Monday of December, the first Monday of March, respectively; but the days upon which these terms shall terminate, are not appointed by any act of assembly. The act of 1811 requires, that if the number of suits *147should render it necessary, the judges shall sit daily, Sundays excepted, during at least nine months in every year, and gives them power to hold adjourned courts whenever the business of the court shall require them to do so. This leaves the continuance of the sessions of the court to some extent discretionary, and of course indefinite, until the court itself shall, by rule or by its arrangements of business, determine the continuance of its sessions at each term. This provision, therefore, of the 31st section, cannot be deemed to authorize the return day appointed in this writ. Whether that section of the act refers to this court, need not be determined. The writ issued in this case is quashed.

Rule absolute.a

a

 This decision does not interfere with the provision of the 31st section of the act of June 13, 1836, by which writs may be made returnable on the next day preceding the last day of the term, where, as in many of the county courts of Penn, sylvania, the duration of the terms is designated by law.'
Skip to Content

# You need Flash 7 or higher.Get Flash.

# You need Flash 7 or higher.Get Flash.
#### Oswald, Appellant, *v.*Oswald.

*Divorce*— Indignities—Course *of intolerable treatment*— Evidence.

In an action for divorce on the ground of indignities to the person, evidence that the respondent, upon two occasions, struck the libellant, does not show such a course of intolerable treatment as to warrant a divorce.

Argued April 21, 1926.

Appeal No. 127, April T., 1926, by libellant, from decree of O'. P. Westmoreland County, February T., 1925, No. 40, in the case of Olympia Toussaint Oswald v. Thomas Edward Oswald.

Before Porter, P. J,, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.

Affirmed.

Libel in divorce. Before Dom, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The case was referred to Daniel Reamer, Esq., Master, who recommended that a divorce be granted. On exception to the Master’s report the court sustained the exceptions 'and dismissed the libel. Libellant appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*Lewis C. Walkinshaw,*for appellant.

*555No appearance and no printed brief for appellee.

July 8, 1926:

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

The ground for divorce set up in tbe libel was that the husband offered such indignities to the person of the wife as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome, and thereby, forcing her to withdraw from his house and family. The husband appeared and contested the action before the master, who recommended that a decree be entered. The learned court below dismissed the libel on the ground that the evidence does not warrant a decree. After a careful examination of the testimony, we are of the same opinion. The parties were married January 12, 1921. The husband was a coal miner, and the wife withdrew from the home on January 13, 1925. When asked to describe the circumstances that led up to her leaving her husband, she said: “We didn’t get along well. Always listening to outside talk; believed it and came home and abused me over it.” When asked about the character of the abuse, she said: “He generally smacked me or beat me around or threw something at' me.” She described two occasions upon which her husband struck her. In one instance her lip was cut and her nose bled. Her other complaint was that her husband accused her of having illicit relations with one Glunt. She said that “he would cast this up to you when he would be mad.” He admitted that he struck his wife on the two occasions described by her. He denied that he accused her of committing adultery. Although she testified that this charge was made in the presence of persons whom she knew, none of them were called to testify. Nor was there any attempt to explain why they were not called. That the husband made this charge is not established to our satisfaction. The other conduct ascribed to him does not show such a course of intoler*556able treatment as to bring the case within the statute authorizing a divorce for indignities to the person: Krug v. Krug, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 572. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the ground of divorce alleged in the libel is not clearly established by the evidence.

The decree is affirmed.
#### Thomas G. HIGGINS, Appellant, v. Anne Elizabeth HIGGINS, Appellee.

No. EE-49.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 30, 1977.

James W. Grimsley, Smith, Grimsley, Barron & Remington, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

David H. Levin, Levin, Warfield, Middle-brooks, Graff, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Although appellant challenges several aspects of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage the only provision requiring discussion is the requirement that appellant maintain a $75,000 life insurance policy in addition to a $15,000 government life insurance policy. In the case of *Riley v. Riley,*131 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), we held that a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain insurance on his life as security for the payments of maintenance and support, but may not order him to establish an insurance estate for the child. Sub judice, appellant was required to pay by the terms of the final judgment $250 a month for the parties’ remaining minor child. At the end of four years, when the child reaches the age of 18, appellant will *49have been obligated to pay a total of $12,-000, which is more than adequately secured by the $15,000 government insurance policy. Thus, the trial court erred in ordering appellant to maintain the $75,000 Prudential life insurance policy. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

Appellee has moved for attorney’s fees for services rendered by her attorney on appeal, but that motion is denied.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

BOYER, Chief Judge, McCORD, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel., Sadie LOVE, Relator, v. Ira S. JACOBSON, M.D., et al., Respondents.

No. 77-341.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 29, 1977.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1977.

Cohen & Kokus and Linda Koenigsberg, Miami, for relator.

Law Offices of Howard E. Barwick, Miami Shores, by M. Lee Gay, Jr., Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight, Miami, for respondents.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

Relator Sadie Love is a claimant in a medical mediation proceeding pursuant to the Medical Liability Mediation Panel Law, Section 768.44, Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.). She filed her suggestion for writ of prohibition alleging that the medical mediation panel lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the mediation because more than six months had expired from the date of the filing of the claim and that although the time was extended to six months from the date of the filing of claim, no further order was made to extend the time to the ten months provided for jurisdiction of the panel. This court issued a rule nisi and responses upon the merits have been filed.

It appears without contradiction from the petition, responses and briefs filed herein that on January 19, 1977, after the expiration of the six month period, claimant made an ore tenus motion either to terminate jurisdiction or to extend to ten months the time to hear the cause. In response thereto, the judicial referee denied claimant’s motion to terminate jurisdiction but did not expressly rule upon the motion to extend to ten months the time to hear the cause. We hold that the order of the judicial referee denying claimant’s motion to terminate jurisdiction was correct. The statute, by providing that if there is no hearing on the merits within ten months of the date the claim is filed the jurisdiction of the mediation panel terminates, thus provided that jurisdiction of the panel to holding a hearing on the merits necessarily extended until the expiration of such ten month period.

Whereupon, upon consideration of the suggestion for writ of prohibition and the responses filed, it is ordered that the rule nisi is quashed and the suggestion for writ of prohibition is dismissed.

It is so ordered.
UNITED
        STATES
 SECURITIES
        AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington,
        D.C. 20549
 
 
 FORM
        8-K
 
 CURRENT
        REPORT
 
 Pursuant
        to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
 Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934
 
 
 Date
                  of Report (date of earliest event reported):
              April
                  10, 2006
 
  TERABEAM,
                  INC.(Exact
                  name of registrant as specified in its
                  charter)
 
 
 Delaware
              000-29053
              04-2751645(State
                  or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
              (Commission
                  file number)
              (IRS
                  employer identification no.)
 
 
 2115
                  O’Nel Drive, San Jose, CA
              95131(Address
                  of principal executive offices)
              (Zip
                  code)
 
 
 Registrant’s
                  telephone number, including area code:
              (408)
                  731-2700
 
 Not
                  Applicable(Former
                  name or former address, if changed since last
                  report)
 
  Check
        the
        appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
        satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
        provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):
  o  Written
        communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
        230.425)
  o  Soliciting
        material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
        240.14a-12)
  o  Pre-commencement
        communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
        240.14d-2(b))
  o  Pre-commencement
        communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
        240.13e-4(c))
   
  Item
        5.02 Departure
        of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of
        Principal Officers .
 
 Effective
        April 10, 2006, David F. Olson voluntarily resigned as President and Chief
        Operating Officer of Proxim Wireless Corporation.
 
 SIGNATURE
 
 Pursuant
        to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
        has
        duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
        duly authorized.
 
 TERABEAM,
                INC.Dated:
                  April 11, 2006
              By:
              /s/
                  David L. RenauldDavid
                  L. RenauldVice
                  President
 
 
 
 2
February 23, 2000

No. 98-829.

#### Florida Department of Corrections *v.*Dickson et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 1132.] Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.
1010

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\maps\Chatuge_land_plan\Chatuge_land_plan_for_Web.mxd

/0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Feet

Chatuge Reservoir Land Management PlanDetailed View of Parcel 10

Jul 23, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20419]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT97-56-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Refund Report Filing

July 29, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 24, 1997, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) filed a refund report pursuant to the Commission's February 22, 
1995, Order in Docket No. RP95-125 (70 FERC para. 61,205).
    NGT states that 1996 Gas Research Institute Tier 1 refunds totaling 
$258,796, were made to its eligible firm transportation customers 
during the period of June 20 to June 30, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene on protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211). All such motions 
or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
on are file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection. '
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20419 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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




In
connection with the Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
She, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.


Date: August 13, 2010
                    
                    
                    /s/
      David SheDavid
      She
                              Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
No. 00-6615.

#### Sepeda *v.*Densford.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.