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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of NeoGenomics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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



|                  |  |                                                     
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 2, 2011 |  | /s/ Douglas M. VanOort                              
|                  |  | Douglas M. VanOort                                  
|                  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|                  | 
|Date: May 2, 2011 |  | /s/ George Cardoza                                  
|                  |  | George Cardoza                                      
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer                             
|                  | 
|Date: May 2, 2011 |  | /s/ Jerome J. Dvonch                                
|                  |  | Jerome J. Dvonch                                    
|                  |  | Director of Finance and Principal Accounting Officer

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



25
#### In re FORFEITURE OF the following described property, 1972 MERCURY, SERIAL NO. 2H11H539168, FLORIDA LICENSE TAG # 2-114609. James Samuel BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 18, 1978.

Donald G. Nichols of Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Patti Eng-lander, Michael H. Davidson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Brown appeals from a judgment ordering the forfeiture of his automobile to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department pursuant to Sections 943.41-44, Florida Statutes (1975). Brown contends that a forfeiture under Sections 943.41-44 is permitted only upon a showing that the automobile was being used in a drug operation or was significantly involved in a criminal enterprise. The State contends this case is controlled by this Court’s decision in *Grimm v. State,*305 So.2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

A Jacksonville Beach police officer received information from a confidential informant that Brown was in possession of marijuana. The officer went to Brown’s home where he saw Brown and two men get into the car. The officer followed the car and when it stopped, identified himself and asked if he could search the car. Brown consented to the search. The officer found eight one-ounce baggies of marijuana in the trunk. Brown denied they were his. The automobile was seized pursuant to Section 943.42. The State filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging Brown used the car in violation of Section 943.42. Brown answered denying he used the car in violation of Section 943.42.

The evidence adduced at the hearing was as outlined above. No evidence was adduced that Brown’s car was being used in a drug operation or was significantly involved in a criminal enterprise. No evidence was adduced that Brown knew that the marijuana was in the car.

*473This case is controlled by *Griffis v. State,*356 So.2d 297, Case No. 51,011, Supreme Court of Florida, opinion filed 2 March 1978, not yet reported, which overrules our *Grimm*case. In *Griffis,*our Supreme Court held that a vehicle forfeiture under Sections 943.41-44 is permitted only upon a showing of “a nexus between the illegal drugs found in the car and the furtherance of an illegal drug ‘operation’ ”. There was no such showing in this ease. The transportation of a controlled substance in a car which is only incidental to possession, which was the case here, is insufficient to invoke the forfeiture provisions of Sections 943.41-44.

The judgment of forfeiture is reversed.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


WANELEY WRAY BROWN, 


Petitioner 

3: 15-cv-1680 

v. 

(Judge Mariani) 

LORETTA LYNCH, et al., 

Respondents 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this :;--1, day of October, 2015, for the reasons set forth in the 

Memorandum of the same date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. 	 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED as 

moot. 1 

2. 	 The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 

3. 	 The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this action. 

4. 	 Any appeal will be deemed frivolous, without probable cause, and not taken in 

good faith. 

, 

Ro ert D. Mariani 

United States District Judge 

\ Subsequent to filing the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner paid the 

requisite filing fee. See (Docket Entry dated September 22, 2015). 

Case 3:15-cv-01680-RDM-CA Document 6 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 1
### Thorium investigations, 1950-52, Wet Mountains, Colorado

By: Robert Adam ChristmanA. M. HeymanL. F. DellwigG. B. Gott

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir290

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

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.
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 NeoGenomics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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



|                    |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 26, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas M. VanOort                              
|                    |  |  |  | Douglas M. VanOort                                  
|                    |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|                    |  | 
|Date: July 26, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ George Cardoza                                  
|                    |  |  |  | George Cardoza                                      
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                             
|                    |  | 
|Date: July 26, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Jerome J. Dvonch                                
|                    |  |  |  | Jerome J. Dvonch                                    
|                    |  |  |  | Director of Finance and Principal Accounting Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is
not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# TITLE I



# THE STATE ANDITS GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER21-0 

# DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Section 21-0:11 21-0:11 Air Resources Council . - 1 . There is hereby established an air resources council which shall be composed of 11 members, including one representing the steampower generating industry; one representing the oil industry; one representing the natural gas industry; one representing the manufacturing component of industry; one representing the field of municipal government ; and 6 members appointed at large who shall represent the public interest, one of whom

shall be a licensed practicing physician or other health care professional possessing expertise in the field of public health and the health-related impacts of air pollution, one of whom shall represent the field of recreation, and at least one of whom shall represent environmental interests. The council members who shall represent the public interest may not derive any significant portion of their income frompersons subject to permits or enforcement orders, and may not serve as attorney for, act as consultant for, serve as officer or director of, or hold any other official or contractual relationship with any person subject to permits or enforcement orders. All potential conflicts of interest shall be adequately disclosed. The members shall be residents of the state and shall be appointed by the governor with the consent of the executive council . Each member shall serve for a termof 4 years. 

### Source. 1986, 202:1 . 1994, 412:10. 1995, 226:12, eff . Aug. 13, 1995; 262:1, eff . Aug. 18, 1995. 2006, 62:1, ef£ June 23, 2006 . 2010, 354

:6, ef£ Sept . 18, 2010

.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42518

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DIMAS ROBERT NARVAIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 593

Filed: August 14, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence and order relinquishing 

jurisdiction, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Dimas Robert Narvaiz pled guilty to aggravated assault, I.C. § 18-915(a), and entered an 

Alford1 plea to use of a firearm or deadly weapon, I.C. § 19-2520. In exchange for his guilty 

plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Narvaiz to a unified term 

of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. However, the district 

court retained jurisdiction, and Narvaiz was sent to participate in the rider program. 

 

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

After Narvaiz completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered 

execution of Narvaiz’s sentence. During the rider review hearing, Narvaiz moved, pursuant to 

I.C.R. 35, for a reduction of his sentence. The district court denied the motion. Narvaiz appeals, 

claiming that the district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce his sentence upon 

relinquishment of jurisdiction. 

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our 

review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the 

same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 

113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987). 

The order of the district court denying Narvaiz’s Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence and the order relinquishing jurisdiction without modification are affirmed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 AND 15D-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Dr. Jan Stahl,  Chief  Executive and Financial  Officer of APO Health,  Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10 Q of APO Health, 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-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:

(a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures of a date within 45 days of the filing date of this quarterly  report
(the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness
of the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the  registrant's  board of  directors  (or persons  performing  the  equivalent
function):

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) any fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and I have  indicated  in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                                      -14-
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 of KIT digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kaleil Isaza Tuzman,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 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;
and





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




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Date:
      August 16, 2010
            /s/ Kaleil Isaza TuzmanKaleil
      Isaza Tuzman
              Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
No. 00-595.

#### Maier, McIlnay & Kerkman, Ltd. *v.*Bodenstein, United States Trustee, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Exhibit 31.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carrie A. Wolfe, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FTD, 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



| | Date: September 24, 2004 |  | /s/CARRIE A. WOLFE
| | ------------------------ |  | ------------------
| |                          |  | Name:             
| |                          |  | Title:            

---



QuickLinks
256 La. 82

#### Leonard METCALF, Individually and for the Use and Benefit of his Minor Son, Perry METCALF v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Inc.

No. 50629.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1970.

In re: Leonard Metcalf, Individually and for the use and benefit of his minor son, Perry Metcalf applying for remedial writs.

Application denied. It does not appear that the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing the motion for continuance.
#### W. J. "Bill" PRATHER and Bitiminous Casualty Corp. v. Martin CARTER.

No. 49621.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 21, 1977.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Jackson H. Abies, III, Jackson, for appellant.

Wells & Blalock, Calvin B. Wells, Natchez, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
ENCLOSURE 

Freedom of Navigation (FON) FY 06 Operational Assertions 

COUNTRY MARITIME CLAIM CHALLENGED 

Philippines* Excessive straight baselines; claims 

archipelagic waters as internal waters. 

Indonesia* Archipelagic sea lanes passage. 

Iran* Restriction on right of passage through 

Straits of Hormuz to Law of the Sea 

Convention Signatories. 

Oman* Claim to recognize only the regime of 

innocent passage and not transit passage 

through Straits of Hormuz. 

Taiwan Restriction on right of innocent passage 

through territorial sea; requirement of prior 

notice of warships transiting territorial sea. 

Note: * designates multiple FON operation challenges during FY 06. 

Enclosure
#### Alfred MART and S. G. D. Corporation, Inc., Appellants, v. Rhea PINCUS, Appellee.

No. 69-511.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 17, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.