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

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                August 14, 2008 | /s/              Ban Jun Yang                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | Ban                Jun Yang, President, CEO and Director (Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated June 14, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements (which report includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (R), effective April 1, 2006) and Schedule II and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of New Frontier Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of New Frontier Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-102694).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New YorkJune 14, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1: Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1850 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of  South  Texas  Oil  Company  (the
"Company") on Form  10-QSB for the  period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Murray N. Conradie, 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, and that to  the best of  the
undersigned's knowledge and belief:

(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 result of  operations  of  the
Company.

                         /s/ Murray N. Conradie
                         -------------------------------------------
                         MURRAY N. CONRADIE, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 14, 2005
#### Herbert A. Landry, Plaintiff, *v.*Nathan N. Bardt et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

October 30, 1958.

*Robert M. Callahan*for John E. Russell, defendant.

*Morris I. Gold*for Nathan N. Bardt, defendant.

*Frederick K. Eackett*for plaintiff.

D. Ormonde Ritchie, J.

The defendants make this motion for an order pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice dismissing the complaint herein upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint alleges publication by defendants of libelous statements concerning plaintiff. One of the statements is alleged to have been published in the following words:Landry Report a Farce! ! ! ” “ By Dr. Landry’s own admission his report is — Misleading, Incomplete, Inaccurate.” “ A report which has proved to be a farce, since the chapter on which the recommended expansion was based was not included through what Dr. Landry calls an ‘unfortunate clerical error.’ The chapters which were included are incorrect and according to Dr. Landry, have nothing to do with suggested expansion.” The complaint does not allege special damage and it is the contention of defendants that the statements attributed to them are not libelous per se, and, since they are not in that category, absence of a sufficient allegation of special damages renders *624the complaint insufficient. If defendants’ contention that the words published are not libelous per se is correct the complaint must be held insufficient by'reason of its lack of pleading special damage. But here the words published charge plaintiff with incompetence in the practice of his profession, and, if false, of necessity tends to injure him therein.' Where the libelous publication is actionable per se special damage is not required to be alleged as a requisite to the sufficiency of the cause of action.

The motion is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

I, Ralph E. Bailey, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Fuel-Tech N.V.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules l3a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

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

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

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

6.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 15, 2004         By: /s/ Ralph E. Bailey
                                 -------------------
                                 Ralph E. Bailey
                                 Chairman, Managing Director
                                 and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended May 29, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott J. Miller, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

|   |   |                                                                                     |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/ Scott J. Miller                                                                      |
|   |   |                                                                                     |
|   |   | Scott J. Miller*Chief Financial Officer*

*(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

Date: July 9, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff

LINDA LEE SMITH MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1023-96-4 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 1, 1996 ALEXANDRIA METAL FINISHERS, INC. AND ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (J. Burkehardt Beale; Lella Amiss E. Pape; Boone, Beale, Carpenter & Cosby, on brief), for appellant. (William S. Sands, Jr.; Duncan and Hopkins, on brief), for appellees.

Linda Lee Smith appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying her application seeking compensation for an occupational disease. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the

commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Stenrich Group v. Jemmott , 251 Va. 186, 199, 467 S.E.2d 795, 802 (1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under the present provisions of the Act").

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<CIK>                  0000847015
<NAME>                 TC X Calibur, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               4,715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        97,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                         25,005
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     82,242
<PP&E>                                               445,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (400,753)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       126,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                189,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5,480
<OTHER-SE>                                          (67,480)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         126,798
<SALES>                                              693,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     693,354
<CGS>                                                434,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        434,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     275,938
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (17,134)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (17,130)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.01)


</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Aug. 1, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-13123

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00078-CR-4-SPM-WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

WARDELL GORDON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 1, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Noel G. Lawrence, appointed counsel for Wardell Gordon, has filed a
2

motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and

Gordon’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Annual Volumn

1985-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

02005-2009

2010-2014

2015-2019

2020-2024

2025-2029

O N) W

0 O

O b b

O

0

(.n

0

O

V7,

# ff m <

o 0

0

0

'0

0

O

0

0

O

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21KK

'D 

III 

LQ 

(l) 

f-' 

2000-2004 

-0 

ID 

~. 2005-2009 

o 

a. 

o 

o ~ 

o 

o 

2020-2024 -+-1 -&+ -+1--1-

2025-2029 I Ii I 

:j~ 

w 

o 

o 

Annual Volumn 

.j:>.. 

o 

o 

<.n 

o 

o 

0-. 

o 

o 

'-J 

o 

o 

(X) 

o 

o 

'0 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

07 

Q 

C 

CIt -~ 

Q 

(J) -

CIt 

-n 

o 

o "'" 

Q 

~ 

() 

::r 

III 

t-\ 

rt 

OJ 
VOLUME

FLUORESCENT BALLAST MARKET

20

18

16

14

0

0

0

0)

N M t[)

MAGNETIC BALLASTS ELECTRONIC BALLASTS

^A^TOTAL 12 per. Mov. Avg. (TOTAL)

-

12 per. Mov. A. (MAGNETIC BALLASTS) -12 per. Mov. Avg. (ELECTRONIC BALLASTS)

r

0)

0)

Page 1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21KK

20 

18 

16 

14 

CI) 

5 12 

::J 

-l 

~ ......... 10 

~ 

i= 

z 

« 8 

:::> 

o 

6 

4 

2 

o 

0) 

CIO 

0) 

..-

VOLUME 

FLUORESCENT BALLAST MARKET 

o ..- N 0) 

0) -+-MAGNETIC BALLASTS 

('I') -.;t LO 

__ ELECTRONIC BALLASTS 

-6-TOTAL -12 per. Mav. Avg. (TOTAL) 

-12 per. Mav. Avg. (MAGNETIC BALLASTS) -12 per. Mav. Avg. (ELECTRONIC BALLASTS) 

Page 1
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 11790A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1005

Mr. John Monaco

President/CEO, Chief sUAS Operator, and Founder

Sierra Pro Aerial Imaging, LLC

6610 Star Vista Lane

Rocklin, CA 95677

Dear Mr. Monaco:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated April 7, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Sierra Pro Aerial Imaging, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an 

amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 

61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You 

requested an amendment to change the company name from Eagle View Aerial Imaging LLC

to Sierra Pro Aerial Imaging, LLC.

1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

 

1 The petitioner also requested to add operations. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When 

the FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11790

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Sierra Pro Aerial Imaging, LLC is hereafter referred to as the 

operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11790 remain in 

effect.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

STEVEN JONES, JR., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 947 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Memorandum and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 777 

EDA 2015 exited November 13, 2015, 

affirming the Order of the Delaware 

County Court of Common Pleas at No. 

CP-23-CR-0001881-2002 exited 

February 18, 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 12th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates the prohibition 

against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme 

Court of the United States in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). 

As a result of the recent holding by that Court that Miller must be applied retroactively 

by the States, see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the 

Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further 

proceedings consistent with Montgomery. 

To the extent necessary, leave is to be granted to amend the post-conviction 

petition to assert the jurisdictional provision of the Post Conviction Relief Act extending 

to the recognition of constitutional rights by the Supreme Court of the United States 

which it deems to be retroactive. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). 

Mr. Justice Eakin and Madame Justice Donohue did not participate in the 

consideration or decision of this matter. 

DECIDED: February 12, 2016
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, StevenTanner, Chief Financial 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Steven Tanner       |              |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| Steven Tanner           |              |
| Chief Financial Officer |              |
|                    |              |
|                    | May 12, 2008 |   |
|                         |                   |        |  |

 

----
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Ricks, Appellant, *v.*Maroney.

Argued November 14, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

*65
      *John W.*Ricks, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

*William F. Caruthers,*Assistant District Attorney, with Mm *Richard E.*McCormick, District Attorney, for appellee.

December 14, 1961:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge John M. O’Connell for the court beloAV, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 761.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

s0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137616

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137616 COA: 284105 Genesee CC: 84-034011-FH MARK ANTHONY PERRIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 18, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).