alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
                    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 Souvall-Page and Company, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), we, David C. Merrell, President and director, and Todd D.
Ross, Secretary/Treasurer 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:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 8/14/06                           /s/David C. Merrell
       -------                            ---------------------------
                                         David C. Merrell
                                         President and director

Dated: 8/14/06                           /s/Todd D. Ross
      --------                            ---------------------------
                                         Todd D. Ross
                                         Secretary/Treasurer and director
#### Rebecca W. Twine, Respondent, v Walter Belling et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for alleged legal malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated March 19, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied their cross motion to compel the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint or a more definite statement of the plaintiff’s cause of action *(see,*CPLR 3024 [a]), and awarded the plaintiff $500 in costs.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which is for a more definite statement pursuant to CPLR 3024 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, to reduce the motion costs to be paid to the plaintiff to $100; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The denial of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for a more definite statement pursuant to CPLR 3024 is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [b] [2]; *Weicker v Weicker,*26 AD2d 39). In any event, the application was properly denied as untimely. Nor did the Supreme Court improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to compel the plaintiff to amend her pleadings, and in suggesting that the defendants serve a demand for a bill of particulars upon the plaintiff to obtain the desired clarification of her claims. However, since CPLR 8202 provides that costs not exceeding $100 may be awarded on a motion, the motion costs must be reduced accordingly. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AirTran Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February xx, 2007 (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AirTran Holdings, Inc.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                           
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph B. Leonard                                     
|                     |  |     |  | Joseph B. Leonard Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer    
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stanley Gadek                                         
|                     |  |     |  | Stanley J. Gadek                                          
|                     |  |     |  | Senior Vice President Finance, and Chief Financial
Officer
#### In the Matter of George L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Sparrow, J.), dated July 12, 1989, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated May 12, 1989, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated May 12, 1989.

Ordered that the order of disposition is modified, on the law, by vacating the finding as to criminal mischief in the fourth degree and dismissing that count of the petition; as so modified, the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the fact-finding order is modified accordingly.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review *471power, we are satisfied that the findings as to those two charges were not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

However, we find that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was insufficient to support a finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree *(see,*Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). Nevertheless, we find that placement of the appellant on probation for two years is appropriate in light of the other acts which he was found to have committed.

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# L_2006364DE.01009201.xml

| 20.12.2006 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 364/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 364/92

---

Berichtigung des Gemeinsamen Standpunkts 2006/625/GASP des Rates vom 15. September 2006 betreffend das Verbot des Verkaufs oder der Lieferung von Rüstungsgütern und zugehörigen Gütern und die Erbringung damit zusammenhängender Dienstleistungen an Einrichtungen oder Einzelpersonen im Libanon im Sinne der Resolution 1701 (2006) des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 253 vom 16. September 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 253 vom 16. September 2006

Seite 37, Artikel 2 Absatz 1 Buchstabe c:

anstatt:

| „c) | die Güter oder Dienstleistungen von der UNIFIL im Rahmen ihrer Mission oder von den libanesischen Streitkräften genehmigt wurden.“. |
| --- | --- |

„c)

die Güter oder Dienstleistungen von der UNIFIL im Rahmen ihrer Mission oder von den libanesischen Streitkräften genehmigt wurden.“.

muss es heißen:

| „c) | die Güter oder Dienstleistungen von der UNIFIL im Rahmen ihrer Mission oder von den libanesischen Streitkräften verwendet werden sollen.“. |
| --- | --- |

„c)

die Güter oder Dienstleistungen von der UNIFIL im Rahmen ihrer Mission oder von den libanesischen Streitkräften verwendet werden sollen.“.

---
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Lexington Energy Services Inc. - Exhibit 10.28






LEASE TERMINATION AGREEMENT

          THIS
LEASE TERMINATION AGREEMENT is made as of the 1st day of November, 2006 by and
between Lexington Energy Services Inc. (“Lexington”) and Southern Well Testing
Ltd. (“Southern”), under the Vehicle Finance Lease Agreement dated January 5,
2006 (known as the 1st p-tank lease agreement).

W I T N E S S E T H

          A.      Lexington
and Southern entered into the 1st p-tank lease agreement whereby
Lexington agrees to lease p-tank to Southern, which are legally described on
Schedule A attached to the original 1st p-tank lease agreement;
and

          B.      Lexington
and Southern desire to terminate the Lease on the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth.

          NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, Lexington and Southern hereby agree as follows:

          1.      The
1st p-tank lease agreement between Lexington and Southern dated
January 5, 2006 is terminated with no penalty or costs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the
parties to it, on the day, month and year first written.

 

Lexington Energy Services Inc. 
by its authorized
signatory

/s/ Larry
Kristof                                    
Larry
Kristof, President

Southern Well Testing Ltd. 
by its authorized
signatory

/s/ Brent
Nimeck                                   
Brent
Nimeck, President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1295

KHADIJAH MUHAMMAD, singly and as next friend

to,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

ALYSHA S. PERKINS, a minor,

Plaintiff,

versus

GUARDIAN CORPORATION, d/b/a Hardee's of Cross

Lanes, West Virginia, the parent company of

Hardee's,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

HARDEE'S OF CROSS LANES, WEST VIRGINIA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-94-890-2)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
2
3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khadijah Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan Rex Cokeley, STEPTOE &

JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Muhammad v. Hardee's Cross Lanes, No. CA-94-890-2 (S.D.W.

Va. Jan. 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court.

AFFIRMED
# L_2006008EN.01004201.xml

| 13.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 8/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 8/42

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 49/2006

of 12 January 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 6 to 12 January 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 January 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-23995, 333-70313 and 333-34521) on Form S-8 of BostonFed Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") of our report dated March 5, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity
and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2003, which report is incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.
Our report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard
("SFAS") No. 142 "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" effective January 1,
2002.


/s/KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 12, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Hernandez, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered April 25, 1989, convicting defendant after jury trial of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from 3 to 6 years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant and two others were convicted of assault for an attack on a fellow inmate at Rikers Island, during which the victim was stabbed and suffered a collapsed lung. Defendant now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that, for various reasons, each of the People’s witnesses lacked credibility.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), was legally sufficient. The testimony of the complainant and an inmate eyewitness was not rendered incredible merely because of their extensive criminal records. *(People v Siu Wah Tse,*91 AD2d 350.) It was conceded at trial that there were various inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses. In particular, the People conceded that the correction officer, whom they called as a witness, perjured himself to the extent that he attempted to protect a fellow officer who was required to be present in the prisoner dormitory, but who had apparently been released without authorization to use the bathroom. There is, nevertheless, no reason to believe that this witness had not actually observed defendant participate in the assault. Moreover, all of the issues relating to credibility were squarely presented to the jury, and we discern no reason to usurp their role as arbiter of credibility *(People v Mosley,*112 AD2d 812, *affd*67 NY2d 985). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
# L_2006031EN.01001201.xml

| 3.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 31/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 31/12

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 189/2006

of 2 February 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003, on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 27 January to 2 February 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005 p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 335, 21.12.2005, p. 4.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

---
CERTIFICATION





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


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 5, 2011By:/s/ Alan S. GeverAlan S. GeverExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal financial officer of Registrant)
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, J. Kevin Adams, the Chief Executive Officer
of Green Ballast, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012 (the “Report”)
of the Company 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: November
14, 2012

| | /s/ J. Kevin Adams                     
| | ---------------------------------------
| | J. Kevin Adams, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2006248EN.01002401.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4382 — TPG/Aleris)

(2006/C 248/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 October 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4382. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4382. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---