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 Annual Report of Voyant International Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dana R. Waldman, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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 Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: April 8, 2008



| |                                                                   
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Dana R. Waldman                                               
| | Dana R. Waldman                                                   
| | Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Principal Executive Officer



A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Ralph H. FELDER, Jr.

No. 93-CC-1179.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 23, 1993.

Luther T. Brantley, III, Jackson, for petitioner.

John P. Price, McComb, for respondent.

Appeal No. 93041 from Judgment dated Sept. 16, 1993, John C. Love Jr., Ruling Judge, Commission on Judicial Performance.

Before En Banc.

•Complaint Tribunal’s Recommendation Affirmed.

DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, C.J., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur.
#### HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and First National Bank of Colorado Springs, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, v. Carolyn A. CORDOVA dba Bob Cordova Driwall, Third-Party Defendant/Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 84CA1346.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Jan. 9, 1986.

Spurgeon, Haney & Howbert, P.C., Nancy Chase Miller, Colorado Springs, for third-party defendants-appellees.

Frederic M. Wise, P.C., Colorado Springs, for third-party defendant/intervenor-appel-lant.

SMITH, Judge.

Carolyn A. Cordova, dba Bob Cordova Driwall, (Cordova) appeals from the trial *927court’s dismissal of her claim for foreclosure of a blanket mechanic’s lien. We affirm.

In 1981, Cordova was hired as a subcontractor to install drywall in townhomes located in a subdivision owned by Hill Development Corporation. Cordova was not paid in full for her work, and on April 11, 1983, she filed a blanket mechanic’s lien on eight of the lots in the subdivision. Cordova had not performed any labor or furnished any materials on these liened lots within the four months preceding the date the blanket lien was filed, but had worked on another lot in the subdivision within this period of time.

Cordova then sought to enforce her lien and was permitted to intervene in an action commenced by another lien holder. On a summary judgment motion, the trial court found that Cordova’s blanket lien had not been timely filed and dismissed her claim for foreclosure.

On appeal, Cordova contends that the trial court erred in not utilizing the last date she furnished labor or materials to the unliened lot for purposes of determining whether the blanket lien was timely filed. We find no merit in this contention.

Although § 38-22-103(4), C.R.S. (1982 ReplVol. 16A) provides that under certain circumstances a single lien may be made, established, and enforced against two or more improvements, this section does not exempt such “blanket liens” from compliance with the statutory provisions upon which the right to the existence of a mechanic’s lien depends. Accordingly, a blanket lien, as any other mechanic’s lien, must be filed within applicable time limits and must contain a description of the property to be charged with the lien. *See*§ 38-22-109, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 16A).

There is no statutory support for Cordova’s argument that the applicable time limits can be satisfied by work performed on property not described in the lien statement. Therefore, the time for filing Cordova’s lien commenced the day after which the last labor was performed or the last material was furnished by Cor-dova on the lots described in the lien statement.

Because Cordova’s lien statement was not filed within four months from this date, it was not timely filed, and the trial court correctly ruled that Cordova’s failure to comply with the requirements of the statute rendered her lien unenforceable. *See Everitt Lumber Co. v. Prudential Insurance Co.,*660 P.2d 925 (Colo.App.1983).

Judgment affirmed.

STERNBERG and BABCOCK, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO  RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Birmingham Bloomfield Bancshares,
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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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.
    
    [Reserved];
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/  Robert E. FarrRobert E. FarrChief Executive Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Glenn WRIGHT v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden Dixon.

No. 89-KH-0057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Wright, Glenn; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; *1256Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”.

Denied. Moot. All pleadings filed in the district court have been considered.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 961

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to improve

shared appreciation arrangements.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 5, 1999

Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.

KERREY, and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act to improve shared appreciation arrangements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHARED APPRECIATION ARRANGEMENTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 353(e) of the Consoli5 dated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

6 2001(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and insert7 ing the following:
2

•S 961 IS

1 ‘‘(2) TERMS.—A shared appreciation agreement

2 entered into by a borrower under this subsection

3 shall—

4 ‘‘(A) have a term not to exceed 10 years;

5 ‘‘(B) provide for recapture based on the

6 difference between—

7 ‘‘(i) the appraised value of the real se8 curity property at the time of restruc9 turing; and

10 ‘‘(ii) that value at the time of recap11 ture, except that that value shall not in12 clude the value of any capital improve13 ments made to the real security property

14 by the borrower; and

15 ‘‘(C) be based on appraisals that are con16 ducted by persons with a principal place of

17 business that is located in the State containing

18 the real property.’’.

19 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub20 section (a) shall apply to a shared appreciation arrange21 ment entered into under section 353(e) of the Consoli22 dated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

23 2001(e)) that is in effect on or after the date of enactment

24 of this Act.

Æ
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet,  Statement  of  Operations,  Statements  of Cash Flows and Notes  thereto
incorporated  in Part II,  Item 7 of this Form  10-KSB and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000846464
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                          399,652
<SECURITIES>                    55,116
<RECEIVABLES>                   4,440,391
<ALLOWANCES>                    (1,000,000)
<INVENTORY>                     2,433,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,501,957
<PP&E>                          4,011,924
<DEPRECIATION>                  (969,834)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  9,816,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,973,023
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        5,766
<OTHER-SE>                      2,428,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    9,816,630
<SALES>                         7,451,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7,451,433
<CGS>                           4,668,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   8,691,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (342,802)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              755,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    (860,960)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 832,571
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    40,569
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                ADDENDUM TO LEASE

         This  Addendum to a Lease is entered into this the 30th day of October,
1998,  by and between D. Mark Boyd and wife,  Diane H. Boyd (Lessor) and Lincoln
Bank of North Carolina  (Lessee),  the original parties to a certain lease dated
September 1, 1997, consisting of five (5) pages.

         The parties hereby agree to some interior (first floor) alteration work
to be performed by the Lessee,  at Lessee's sole expense (see  attached  Exhibit
"A").  This alteration work will create two new office areas in the building and
the office walls will consist of wooden studs and  sheetrock and thus will equal
the quality and workmanship of the existing walls. The tile ceiling is not to be
disturbed,  also the glass for the  existing  drive thru window will be replaced
with and energy efficient,  solid pane of glass. If needed, carpet will be added
or replaced to match the existing first floor carpet. The cabinets, counters and
glass will be removed and stored in good  condition  by Lessee for future use by
the Lessor,  at no expense to the Lessor.  All alterations  work performed is to
meet all the  requirements  of the  building  codes that pertain to this type of
work.

         Furthermore,  upon the  expiration of this Lease,  at Lessor's  option,
Lessee agrees to  immediately  restore the altered  portion of the building to a
state that is as good or better than the condition thereof  immediately prior to
the alteration work taking place if so required by the Lessor.


         In witness whereof, the parties hereto have duly executed this addendum
         to the lease  agreement and have her unto set their seals as of the day
         of the year first above written:


                                             Lessor:
                                             
                                             /s/ D. Mark Boyd, III
                                             ----------------------
                                                 D. Mark Boyd, III

                                             /s/ Diane H. Boyd
                                             ----------------------

                              
                                             Lessee:

Attest:                                      Lincoln Bank of North Carolina
/s/ Sue S. Stamey                            by:
------------------                                
Sue S. Stamey                                /s/ Jan H. Hollar
Assistant Secretary                          -----------------------
                                                 Jan H. Hollar
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,979
<PP&E>                                           1,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,290
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,880
<SALES>                                         19,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,620
<CGS>                                            9,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    76
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       193
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (946)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.53)
        

</TABLE>
**UNPUBLISHED**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10-1624**

LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Administrator Lisa Jackson; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRON MENTAL CONTROL; ABITIBI BOWATER CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg . R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00968-RBH)

Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Launeil Sanders appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complain without prejudice . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v. United States , No. 7:10

- cv - 00968

- RBH (D.S.C. June 1, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
Aerial Anthropology LLC

DJI PHANTOM SPECIFICATIONSAerial Anthropology LLC
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, L. MichaelCutrer, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of North American Scientific, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)               Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               Disclosedin this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: January 17,2006

| /s/ L. MICHAEL CUTRER                                    |          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| L. Michael Cutrer*President and Chief Executive Officer* | * * |

 

----
#### Larry HUVAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 87-390.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 11, 1988.

Domengeaux & Wright, Anthony Mor-oux, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hawley & Schexnayder, W. Paul Haw-ley, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gibbens & Blackwell, J. Louis Gibbens, New Iberia, Preis, Kraft, Laborde & Dai-gle, P.L.C., Chris R. Philipp, Allen & Gooch, Joel E. Gooch, Lafayette, Chritovich & Kearney, Lawrence Ernst, New Orleans, Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian, Diaz, *842McNamara & Abell, James L. Pate, Lafayette, for defendants-appellees.

Before LABORDE, YELVERTON and KNOLL, JJ.

LABORDE, Judge.

This suit was consolidated at trial and on appeal with *Hebert v. Williams,*526 So.2d 835 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988) rendered this day. As noted in the opinion, appellant, First State Insurance Company, failed to perfect its appeal; therefore, its position cannot be considered. This appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL NOT CONSIDERED.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                    SUNRISE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 
           CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, FORMER INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (Form
S-8, No. 33-82314) and Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-53466)
pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8, No. 33-53448) pertaining to the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Sunrise Technologies International, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 1997 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Sunrise
Technologies International, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1996.

 
                                       /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP.
 
April 6, 1998