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





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




**Certification
      of CEO**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Frequency Electronics, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin
      B. Bloch, Chief Executive 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 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.




/s/
                Martin
                Bloch
              
              
              September
                14,
                2007Martin B. Bloch
                Chief Executive Officer




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 **.**




This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q 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 1934, 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.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 17, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-244

Lower Tribunal No. 14-8095

________________

OneWest Bank, N.A.,

Appellant,

vs.

Gloria Leek-Tannenbaum, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. 

Echarte, Jr., Judge.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, and D. Brian O'Dell (Birmingham, 

AL), for appellant.

Jacobs Legal, PLLC, and Bruce Jacobs, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
2

This appeal stems from an action attempting to foreclose on a reverse 

mortgage. After trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the 

Appellee, the surviving spouse of the borrower, finding that although she did 

not sign the note, she also qualified as a “borrower” because of the 

circumstances surrounding her signing of the mortgage. A panel of this court 

initially agreed. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, 283 So. 3d 366 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

On review, however, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our prior 

decision. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Leek-Tannenbaum, No. SC19-1928, 2021 

WL 4946821, at *1 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2021). Upon remand, the Court directed us 

to reconsider this matter in light of WVMF Funding v. Palmero, 320 So. 3d 

689 (Fla. 2021).

In Palmero, the Court rejected the argument made by the Appellee. 

The Supreme Court held:

Because the note—which defines [the spouse who signed 

the note] and only [that spouse] as the “Borrower”—resolves 

any conflict created by [the surviving spouse] signing her name 

in the “Borrower” signature block of the mortgage, we need not 

look beyond (and it was unnecessary for the trial court to look 

beyond) the note and mortgage to the other documents that 

were part of the same transaction to determine, as a matter of 

law, how the parties intended to define the term “Borrower.”

Palmero, 320 So. 3d at 693.
3

Adhering to Palmero, we reverse the final judgment under review and 

remand with directions that the trial court enter a foreclosure judgment for 

the Appellant.

Reversed with directions.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ignatius CURRERA.

No. 54408.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: Ignatius Currera applying for remedial writs, and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
Exhibit 4.5


                                    July 7, 2004



Wireless Frontier Internet, Inc.
104 West Callaghan Street
Fort Stockton, Texas 79735

Gentlemen:

      I hereby contribute to the capital stock of Wireless Frontier Internet,
Inc. (the "Company") thirteen million seven hundred sixty-two thousand one
hundred twenty-two (13,762,122) shares (the "Shares") of the common stock,
par value $0.001 per share, of the Company held by me, pursuant to the
attached Stock Power, and hereby irrevocably surrender any right, title or
interest that I have to such Shares.

                                    Very truly yours,



                                    Alex J. Gonzalez
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Intercardia, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-12923 and 333-53017) of our report
dated October 30, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
of Intercardia, Inc. as of September 30, 1998 and September 30, 1997 and for
each of the three years in the period ended September 30, 1998, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Raleigh, North Carolina
December 15, 1998
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory G. GAFF.

No. 59996.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1977.

In re: Gregory G. Gaff applying for remedial writs.

Treating the “appeal” from a probation revocation as a writ application, it is denied; there is no merit in the assignment of errors.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

          - 32 CFR Part 736
          - [Docket ID: USN-2018-HQ-0002]
          - RIN 0703-AB05

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

This final rule removes Department of the Navy regulations governing disposition of property, including surplus real property, warships, other surface vessels, personal property, and strategic materials. The disposal of surplus property is governed by standing authorities found within the U.S. Code. Further, disposal of surplus property is also governed by Department of Defense regulations entitled “Defense Material Disposition.” Therefore, this rule can be removed from the CFR.

# DATES:

This rule is effective on June 22, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Omans at 703-614-5848.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing a duplicative CFR part.

Removal of this part does not add or reduce the burden or cost on the public in any way. The cost of disposal of surplus property will remain the same with removal of the part.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

# List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 736

      - Surplus Government property

# PART 736—[REMOVED]

Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 736 is removed.

Dated: June 12, 2018.

E.K. Baldini,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-13409 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 12, 1997, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CASH FLOWS FOR THE 28 WEEKS ENDED DECEMBER 12, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q, QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR
15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-12-1997
<CASH>                                       6,076,735
<SECURITIES>                                   500,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               71,440,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                   982,200
<INVENTORY>                                 62,778,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           150,276,847
<PP&E>                                     248,703,142
<DEPRECIATION>                             118,684,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             319,285,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      154,357,268
<BONDS>                                     85,800,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       612,282
<OTHER-SE>                                  73,295,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               319,285,578
<SALES>                                    503,930,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           503,930,120
<CGS>                                      464,271,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              464,271,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            40,006,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,954,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,161,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,833,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,328,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,328,782)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES





MDSI MOBILE DATA SOLUTIONS INC.--PARENT COMPANY

MDSI SOFTWARE BV--Netherlands
518495 B.C. Ltd.--BC
518496 B.C. Ltd.--BC
MOBILE DATA SOLUTIONS INC.--Delaware
MDSI SERVICES (DANMARK) APS--Denmark
MDSI SERVICES (UK) LTD.--England and Wales
MDSI INTERNATIONAL LTD.--Bermuda
MDSI SOFTWARE SRL--Barbados
SERVICE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.--Kansas
SERVICE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE LTD.--UK (Dormant)
ALLIANCE SYSTEMS LTD.--BVI (Dormant)
CONNECTRIA CORPORATION --Missouri
MDSI SERVICES (NETHERLANDS) BV --Netherlands
Exhibit 32.01

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 Annual Report of Benihana Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ended March 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joel A. Schwartz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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; and                               
| |                                                                                                                                                            
| | 2. The information contained in the Report
  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
  results of operations of the Company.

|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/ Joel A. Schwartz    | 
|                        | 
|Joel A. Schwartz        | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|                        | 
|June 13, 2008           | 

---
Exhibit 35Servicer Compliance StatementI, Russell A. Cronin, Jr., Senior Vice President of National City Bank (the “Servicer”), and, insuch capacity, the officer in charge of the Servicer’s responsibility under the Pooling andServicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 1995, as amended and supplemented (the “Agreement”), herebycertify that:1. A review of the Servicer’s activities for the period commencing January 1, 2007 and endingDecember 31, 2007 and of the Servicer’s performance under the Agreement during such period has beenmade under my supervision; and2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.March 21, 2008      National City Bank, as Servicer
# C_2004129EN.01S00301.xml

| 5.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

NOTICE TO READERS

A special edition of the Official Journal of the European Union containing the texts of the Acts of the institutions and of the European Central Bank adopted before accession will be published in the Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene languages. The volumes of this edition will be issued gradually between 1 May and the end of 2004.

Official Journal of the European Union

Pending publication, the electronic version of the texts is available on EUR-Lex.

The EUR-Lex site is at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/accession.html

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/accession.html

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets, the Consolidated Statements of Income and the
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                         100,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  227,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,178,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,600,219
<PP&E>                                       3,395,563
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,349,343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,917,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,185,212
<BONDS>                                        426,794
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       232,915
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,489,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,917,482
<SALES>                                      2,479,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,479,234
<CGS>                                        1,889,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,889,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             65,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    65,464
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Aimie Dolbec TROUT, Appellee.

No. 39862.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 24, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc.'s financial statements for the
year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>             0000936105
<NAME>            FRONTIER TELEPHONE OF ROCHESTER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          53,103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,082
<INVENTORY>                                        336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,565
<PP&E>                                         998,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                 637,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 504,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,108
<BONDS>                                         40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       232,165
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   504,798
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               336,902
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,097)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,630
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             60,723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### LIBERTY EQUITIES CORP., Appellant, v. ROMARK ASSOCIATES, INC., etc., Appellee.

No. 71-336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 14, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court for Broward County; Jose A. Gonzalez, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert MITCHELL and Jack Holt.

No. 60687.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1977.

In re: Robert Mitchell and Jack Holt applying for supervisory writs and stay order.

Denied. Applicants have an adequate remedy by review in the event of conviction.
Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (15 U.S.C. § 7241)

I, Carol M. Herndon, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Delhaize America, 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; 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 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: August 15, 2006



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Carol M. Herndon    
|Carol M. Herndon        
|Chief Accounting Officer