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

 

November 8, 2013

 

Via EDGAR

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Re:                             Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOC Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 
|     | The   Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee   for VOC Energy Trust                    |
|     |                                              |   |
|     | By:                                               | /s/   MICHAEL J. ULRICH |
|     |                                              | Michael   J. Ulrich |
| * * | * *                                          | *Vice President and Trust Officer* |

 

1

----
### Delaware Aviation Museum Foundation 21513 Rudder Lane
July 10, 2013 US Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building grund floor, RoomW-12-140 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sirs; Georgetown, Delaware 19947 Phone: 302-854-0244

Re: Delaware Aviation Museum Foundation, petitioner for extension ofExemption 8702C. Docket NumberFAA-2005-20788 The Delaware Aviation Museum foundation requests extension ofExemption 8702C scheduled to terminate November 30, 2013. In consideration ofthe public interest and safety in which the original petition was granted, the Delaware Aviation Museum Foundation submits the following information to support this request. • The conditions and terms that were detailed in the original petition remain unchanged. • The exemption has been in effect since March 2006 without incident, accident, or InJury. • The Delaware Aviation MuseumFoundation has established and adhered to all ofthe limitations, maintenance and training requirements detailed in Exemption 8702C. IfI canbe offurther assistance to you in yourreview ofthis request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (410) 991-2356, or larrydkelley@aol.com.

Larry D. Kelley RPh Director

1
#### THRELKELD v. TRANS WORLD MARINE CORP. et al.

No. 36826.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 201 So.2d 614.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of RLJ Acquisition, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, H. Van Sinclair, Chief Executive Officer and President
of the Company, and Lisa W. Pickrum, Chief Financial 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.



|Dated:      August 14, 2012 | /s/ H. Van Sinclair                  
|--------------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                            | H. Van Sinclair                      
|                            | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                            |                                      
|Dated:      August 14, 2012 | /s/ Lisa W. Pickrum                  
|                            | Lisa W. Pickrum                      
|                            | Chief Financial Officer
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 USMD Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dr. John House, Chief Executive Officer of USMD Holdings, Inc., certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchanges 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 USMD Holdings, Inc.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 8, 2011



By:

/s/ John HouseJohn House, M.D.Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

● ★

●

★

● ● ● ●
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                 ------------

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-48364, 333-38420, 333-31696, 333-93117,
333-92327, 333-11294, 333-88421 and 333-39553) of our report dated March 27,
2002, except as to Note 25, which is as of August 23, 2002, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Applied Digital
Solutions, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and for each of the two years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000, which appears in this Form 10-K, as amended.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
February 17, 2004
#### Frank M. HUNTER, Appellant, v. H. B. VAN DUZER et al., Appellees.

No. 7380.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 26, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# .IL Department of Energy Washgton, DC 20585


### NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND PUBLIC HEARING FORTHE FEDERAL
• RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE On May 2, 1997, the Department ofEnergy (DOE or Department) published aNotice ofProposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing for the Federal Residential Energy.Efficiency Code (62 FR 24164, May 2, 1997). The commentperiod closes July 30, 1997. The Departmentinvites 

### all interested staktholders to the public hearing. Attachedis the draft agenda for the public meeting. The Departmentrequests comments and/or additional information on issues being considered by 

### DOE in its developmentofthe Final Rule. The issues to be discussed 

### are addressed in the attached Notice ofProposed Rulemaking. The public hearing will be held on June 5, 1997, at the Department ofEnergy. Requests to speak at the hearing mustbe received by the Departmenton or before June 3, 1997. Ten (10) copies of statements to be given at the public hearing mustbe received by the Departmentno later than 4:00 p.m., June 3, 1997. Ifyou plan to attend thepublic hearing or have questions regarding the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, please contactMs. Sandy Beall at (202) 

### 586-7574 or Stephen P. Walder at (202) 

### 586-9145, respectively. 

### TIME: June 

### 5, 1997 (9:00 a.m.

- 5:00 p.m.) 

### PLACE: Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1E-245 Washington, DC 

### 20585 CONTACT: Mr. Stephen P. Walder U.S. Department ofEnergy Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-43 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-9209 (202) 586-4617 (Fax) Sincerely,

Michael 

### 3. McCabe, Director Office ofCodes and Standards Bu dmg Technology, State and

Community Programs Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy Attachment

Printed with soy ink on recycled paperb



### PRELIMINARY DRAFT AGENDA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLEENERGY PUBLIC HEARING ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

PLACE OF HEARING: FORRESTAL BUILDING 1000 

### INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, SW WASHINGTON, DC 20585 TELEPHONE: 202/586-7574 TELEFAX: 202/586-4617 DATES 

### AND TIMES: ThURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997 9:00 A.M.

- 

### 5:00 P.M. L PURPOSE OF THE HEARING The purpose ofthis formal public hearing is to hearthe views ofinterestedpersons on the proposedrule concerning Federalresidential energy efficiency standards. The Departmentwifi considerthe views presented and comments submitted in formulating afinal rulemaking. All 

### persons were given notice ofthe opportunity to attend this public hearing and to submitwritten comments. II. WELCOMING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS UL OPENING STATEMENTS Each speaker is requested to 

### state her orhis name 

### and the company or 

### organization represented. 

### IV. TOPICS The topic to be discussed will be those issues raised by speakers in theirrequestto speak. The Department expects the topics to include: 

### A. Coverage and Application ofBuilding Efficiency Standards B. General Statutory Requirements V. CLOSING REMARKS VI. ADJOURNMENT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Cruz, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered March 27, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

With the exception of the contention that an analogy used by the prosecutor during summation suggested to the jury that the defense was seeking to create a smokescreen to *849obscure the issues in the case, none of the issues raised by the defendant on appeal has been preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818; *People v Fitzgerald,*157 AD2d 666; *People v Andre,*152 AD2d 589), and, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review those issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. While we do disapprove of the prosecutor’s attempt during summation to liken the conduct of the defense to the pitching style of Luis Tiant in the latter stages of his career *(see, People v Ortiz,*125 AD2d 502), we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, this analogy did not serve to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOVEMBER 6, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15323

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 89-06101-CR-JCP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

PAUL ALEBORD, 

a.k.a. Paul Tallini, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(November 6, 2007)

Before ANDERSON, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Federal prisoner Paul Alebord appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion to modify his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 1990,

Alebord was convicted of one count of possession with intent to distribute at least

five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (2), and

sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment, in accordance with the then-mandatory

Sentencing Guidelines provisions. Alebord contends he should be resentenced

because the Supreme Court subsequently held the Sentencing Guidelines are

advisory in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

With limited exceptions, a district court may not modify a term of

imprisonment once it has been imposed. One exception is “in the case of a

defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o),” where, “upon motion of the

defendant . . . the court may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . if such a

reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

We previously held Booker is not a retroactively applicable Guidelines

amendment by the Sentencing Commission, and is not a ground on which a

defendant’s sentence can be reduced pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v.
3

Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005). Thus, the district court did not

abuse its discretion by denying Alebord’s motion to modify his sentence. See id. at

1219 (reviewing a district court’s decision not to reduce a sentence pursuant to

§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion).

AFFIRMED.
----

Corrigendum to the statement by the Commission concerning Article 7(4) of Protocol 3 on ACP sugar of Annex V to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement

(Official Journal of the European Union C 283 of 20 November 2004)

(2005/C 9/10)

On page 2:

for:

read:

----
#### Lloyd V. MURPHY, Appellant, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 68-98.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 13, 1968.

Talburt, Kubicki & Garrett, Miami, for appellant.

Kurtz & Cooper, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant, plaintiff below, seeks reversal of a summary final judgment for the defendant insurance company. The appellant had prayed the court to order the appellee to issue a health and accident insurance policy and to determine the benefits he was entitled to under the policy. He claimed that an oral assurance by the soliciting agent for the appellee that he was insured and the acceptance by the agent of his check in payment of the premium on the policy bound the appellee company.

The application which appellant signed at the culmination of the alleged conversation expressly provided that the application would be deemed to have been declined unless it was approved within sixty days and expressly forbade an agent to waive any condition of the application.

The trial judge correctly found that appellant’s testimony as to the alleged oral contract would not be admissible at trial because of the parol evidence rule. See Sears v. James Talcott, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 776, 778. Cf. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Tedder, 113 Fla. 649, 153 So. 145, 148 *(1934).*

The authority cited by appellant for his position that an enforceable contract came into being upon the agent’s alleged oral promise to insure is Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246, 47 So. 947 (1909). In that case the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of the trial court in which the policyholder recovered upon a fire insurance policy. The company had defended upon a provision of the policy which required that other insurance upon the same property should be endorsed upon or added to the policy. The court held that under the circumstances of that case the agent was the alter ego of the company and that *276the company had by its actions allowed the insured to rely upon the policy so that it would amount to fraud for the company to later assert a provision of the policy which the agent represented would be waived. We do not think the holding in that case amounts to a statement that an agent can bind a company by contracting to issue a policy when the written application expressly states that the agent cannot so contract.

Affirmed.
#### The State, ex rel. Jones Motor Sales, Inc., *v.*Coffinberry et al.

(No. 30647

Decided June 19, 1946.)

*684
      *Messrs. Meyer, Johnson & Kincaid,*for relator.

*Mr. Hugh S. Jenkins,*attorney general, *Mr. C. G. L. Yearick*and *Mr. Albertus B. Conn,*for respondents.

By the Court.

In the case of *Copperweld Steel Co.*v. *Industrial Commission,*142 Ohio St., 439, 52 N. E. (2d), 735, the plaintiff, an employer complying with the workmen’s compensation law, sought from this court a *685writ prohibiting the Industrial Commission from making payments under orders awarding compensation and from taking into consideration any payments, which had been made thereunder, in the merit or individual rating of the plaintiff’s workmen’s compensation risk.

In holding the plaintiff’s petition demurrable in that case, this court said at pages 443 and 444:

> “Counsel for plaintiff do contend that this action is ‘in prohibition.’ Prohibition is a remedy calculated to keep inferior tribunals from usurping power with which they have not been invested. It must be borne in mind that it is not sought herein to prevent a merit rating of a complying employer as was the case in *State, ex rel. Powhatan Mining Co.,*v. *Industrial Commission,*125 Ohio St., 272, 181 N. E., 99, 82 A. L. R., 938, but to control the action of the Industrial Commission with respect to the allowance or disallowance of certain claims. The power to hear claims and award death benefits and compensation for injuries has been expressly conferred upon the commission by Section 1465-90, General Code, and prohibition will not lie to curb the exercise of that power or to prevent the enforcement of a valid award after it has been made upon claims properly before it, as were the claims in the case at bar. * * *

> ‘ ‘ The complying employer has no direct financial interest in the distribution of the state insurance fund. His interest lies in basic and merit ratings and the amount he is required to pay in premiums. With respect to the subject matter involved in a proceeding upon a claimant’s application for compensation under Section 1465-90, General Code, the complying employer’s interest is remote. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party to such a proceeding; not Toeing a party he has no right to appeal or review.”

*686Upon the reasoning and authority of that case, the demurrer in the present proceeding is sustained and a writ of prohibition denied.

*Writ denied.*

*.*Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Preventia, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/ Murray Friedman, DDS
                                 ----------------------
                                 Murray Friedman
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Principal Financial Officer

August 12, 2011
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                    DOUBLETREE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994

                      (In thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                1994                1995                1996
                                          -----------------   -----------------   -----------------
                                                     Fully               Fully               Fully
                                          Primary   Diluted   Primary   Diluted   Primary   Diluted
                                          -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Net Income                                $13,235   $13,235   $17,791   $17,791   $25,934   $25,934
                                          =======   =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
Weighted average shares
  outstanding                              19,953    19,953    21,901    21,901    25,088    25,088

Additional number of common share
  equivalents assuming exercise of
  options and warrants                        118       123       318       480       678       911
                                          -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------

  Weighted average common and
    common equivalent shares
    outstanding                            20,071    20,076    22,219    22,381    25,766    25,999
                                          -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------

Effect of other contingent issuances
  of common shares(1)                        --        --        --        --        --        --
                                          -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------

  Weighted average shares
    outstanding assuming full
    dilution                               20,071    20,076    22,219    22,381    25,766    25,999
                                          =======   =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

  Earnings per share                      $  0.66   $  0.66   $  0.80   $  0.79   $  1.01   $  1.00
                                          =======   =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>

(1) The Company has no outstanding securities or agreements which would result
in the issuance of common shares other than common share equivalents.