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 on Form  10-KSB  (the  "Report")  of ADM
Tronics Unlimited, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005
filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  I, Andre' Di Mino,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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  of the  Company  as of the dates
presented and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: July 14, 2005

                                        /s/ Andre' DiMino
                                        -----------------
                                        Andre' Di Mino
                                        Chief Executive Officer

This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to ADM Tronics  Unlimited,  Inc. and
will be retained by ADM Tronics Unlimited, Inc.. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request..
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Mark R. KellerName:
    Mark R. KellerTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) By:
    /s/ Michael J. GreenName:
    Michael J. GreenTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**I-LINK INCORPORATED**

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

October 14, 2003

 

Theundersigned Allan Silber, duly appointed and incumbent officer of I-LinkIncorporated, a Florida corporation (the “Corporation”), in connection with theCorporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), does hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

 

1.               The Report is in full compliance withreporting requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Corporation.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Allan Silber        |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Allan Silber            |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION

 

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)

 

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In  connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the “Company”)  on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2006 as filed with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),  I, Stephen E. Carley, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that: 

 

| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: November 13, 2006

 

/s/ Stephen E. Carley                 

Stephen E. Carley

President

EPL Intermediate, Inc.

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Melvin CHAVERST, Jr. v. STATE.

6 Div. 486.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 10, 1987.

*644Melvin Chaverst, Jr., pro se.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

McMILLAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The appellant alleges therein that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to interview two witnesses whose names were given to him by the appellant. He further states that his counsel failed to appeal his conviction to this Court even after the appellant expressed his desire to appeal.

The State did not respond to the allegations of the appellant. Therefore, “the un-refuted facts set out by the petitioner must be taken as true.” *Ex parte Floyd,*457 So.2d 961, 962 (Ala.1984); *Hall v. State,*495 So.2d 717, 718 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). Because the petition is meritorious on its face, this case is reversed and remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be held. *Id.*at 718.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00461-CR

Andrey Cardiel Martinez

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-1486-16-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 27, 2017
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONR EC E. I v ED 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

SEP 3 0 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

VS. 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 20 II S0290032 

Judge Sullivan 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY 

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, and the Order of the Judge, fact witness 

depositions in this case are scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2014. However, at this 

time there still remain multiple depositions to be taken by both sides, and it is not possible for 

those depositions to be completed by the end of the fact witness deposition period. Accordingly, 

the FAA requests an extension of the discovery period so that the parties can complete these 

depositions. Respondent has declined to agree to join in a request for an extension of time, and 

Respondent and the FAA have been unable to reach agreement on a schedule such that some of 

the remaining depositions could be conducted by the end of September 2014, with the remainder 

already scheduled, such that the parties could suggest particular adjustments to the existing 

litigation schedule. As a result, the FAA anticipates that between the parties will still need to 

conduct five depositions in three different states, 1 and that the extension of time required would 

1 Respondent seeks to depose three FAA inspectors, and the FAA seeks a corporate deposition of Respondent and an 

individual deposition of one of Respondent's managers. 
be a minimum of 30 days. The FAA anticipates that an extension of this length could not be 

accommodated in the existing litigation schedule. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Judge grant an extension of the 

fact witness deposition period, and instruct the parties to jointly submit a new proposed litigation 

schedule for this case. 

Respectfully submitted this'Zl day of September, 2014. 

CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30'h Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

~ flruillcAA DONNAST ANLEY I 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Sl:P 2 5 2014 

Dated
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                          11,920
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   153,676
<ALLOWANCES>                    6,072
<INVENTORY>                     6,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                187,459
<PP&E>                          1,464,326
<DEPRECIATION>                  177,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,448,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           232,538
<BONDS>                         1,356,281
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        1,036
<OTHER-SE>                      595,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,448,660
<SALES>                         875,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                875,028
<CGS>                           475,381
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   475,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                218,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              94,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 90,669
<INCOME-TAX>                    37,052
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             53,617
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 53,205
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    412
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.00



</TABLE>
#### WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NEVA PRODUCTS, INC. and David Aven, Respondents.

No. 86-446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 1986.

W. Lane Neilson of Neilson and Associates, Tampa, for petitioner.

*118Robert L. McDonald, Jr., of Cramer, Haber & McDonald, P.A., Tampa, for respondents.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the order compelling petitioner to produce those portions of its claim file and related records that are dated prior to the filing of this suit. Our decision is controlled by *Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy,*471 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which this court held that the contents of an insurer’s accident investigation file constituted work product even though it was prepared prior to the filing of the lawsuit. *Accord Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Timmons,*61 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1952); *Walt Disney World Co. v. Cotto,*462 So.2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); *Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea,*455 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); *New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland,*436 So.2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); *Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis,*435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), *petition for review denied,*446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); *Sligar v. Tucker,*267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), *cert. denied,*271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972); *City of Sarasota v. Colbert,*97 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957); *but see Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc.,*444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Since certain portions of the disputed order did not involve work product, we direct the trial court to enter an amended order consistent with this decision.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         33,320
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  212,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                   9,348
<INVENTORY>                                    7,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               293,285
<PP&E>                                         1,946,861
<DEPRECIATION>                                 363,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,073,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          368,339
<BONDS>                                        1,492,360
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,814
<OTHER-SE>                                     960,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,073,820
<SALES>                                        1,340,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,340,661
<CGS>                                          777,289
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  777,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               339,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               4,228
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                117,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                   40,277
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            77,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (53,205)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   24,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.14
        


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       FEF-28-1998
<CASH>                                 139,304
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                        3,188,329
<ALLOWANCES>                            31,249
<INVENTORY>                          1,053,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     4,388,264
<PP&E>                               1,226,866
<DEPRECIATION>                         612,356
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       5,025,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                3,667,276
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                402,499
<OTHER-SE>                              553,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          5,025,620
<SALES>                               2,880,096
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      4,310,761
<CGS>                                 1,324,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         2,397,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         97,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      321,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         169,716
<INCOME-TAX>                             41,953
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     127,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            127,763
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .04
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Robert Lee GASTON v. CLERK OF COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA and the State of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-0184.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Gaston, Robert Lee; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, mandamus; Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 39896.

Denied. Repetitive.
AEARO CORPORATION
                CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>

                                                                   Year Ended September 30,
                                                      1999      2000        2001         2002       2003
                                                   --------   --------    --------     -------    -------

<S>                                                <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
Earnings:
Pre tax income (loss) from continuing operations   $ 10,297   $ 12,624    $ (3,752)   $ 11,104   $ 23,159
Fixed Charges ..................................     26,152     26,497      25,757      22,648     21,692
                                                   --------   --------    --------    --------   --------
Earnings as defined ............................   $ 36,449   $ 39,121    $ 22,005    $ 33,752   $ 44,851
                                                   --------   --------    --------    --------   --------

Fixed Charge:
Interest Expense, net ..........................   $ 24,322   $ 24,387    $ 23,666    $ 20,055   $ 19,587
Interest component of operating lease ..........      1,830      2,110       2,091       2,593      2,105
                                                   --------   --------    --------    --------   --------
Fixed charges as defined .......................   $ 26,152   $ 26,497    $ 25,757    $ 22,648   $ 21,692
                                                   --------   --------    --------    --------   --------

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges .............        1.4        1.5         0.9         1.5        2.1
                                                   ========   ========    ========    ========   ========
</TABLE>





Note:    Ratio of earnings to fixed charges is defined
         pre-tax income from continuing operations
         plus fixed charges divided by fixed charges.
         Fixed charges include interest (including
         amortization of debt issuance costs) and a
         portion of rental expense assumed to
         represent interest.  Earnings for the year
         ended September 30, 2001was insufficient to
         cover fixed charges by $3.8 million.
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 Stereotaxis, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael P. Kaminski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 6, 2010 |  | /s/ Michael P. Kaminski
|                     |  | Michael P. Kaminski    
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | Stereotaxis, Inc.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 231

Referring S. 1456 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Rocco A. Trecosta of

Fort Lauderdale, Florida’’ to the chief judge of the United States Court

of Federal Claims for a report thereon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 10, 1999

Mr. GRAHAM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Referring S. 1456 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Rocco

A. Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida’’ to the chief

judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims

for a report thereon.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. REFERRAL.

3 S. 1456 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Rocco A.

4 Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida’’ now pending in the

5 Senate, together with all the accompanying papers, is re6 ferred to the chief judge of the United States Court of

7 Federal Claims.
2

•SRES 231 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROCEEDING AND REPORT.

2 The chief judge shall—

3 (1) proceed according to the provisions of sec4 tions 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code;

5 and

6 (2) report back to the Senate, at the earliest

7 practicable date, providing—

8 (A) such findings of fact and conclusions

9 that are sufficient to inform the Congress of the

10 nature, extent, and character of the claim for

11 compensation referred to in such bill as a legal

12 or equitable claim against the United States or

13 a gratuity; and

14 (B) the amount, if any, legally or equitably

15 due from the United States to Rocco A.

16 Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Æ
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 Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James Hooke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ James
      HookeJames
      Hooke
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              August
      6, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.