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


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-
OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the amendment to the Annual Report of ADDvantage
Technologies Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth A. Chymiak, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec 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.


By: /s/ Kenneth A. Chymiak
-----------------------------
Kenneth A. Chymiak
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
February 25, 2004


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 ADDvantage Technologies
Group, Inc. and will be retained by ADDvantage Technologies Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of AVI BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. David Boyle II, asInterim Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ J. David Boyle II                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| J. David Boyle II                                  |   |
| Interim Chief Executive  Officer and President,    |   |
| Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| AVI  BioPharma, Inc.                          |   |
| April 28, 2010                                |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended.

 

See also thecertification pursuant to Sec. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which isalso attached to this Report.

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
(Principal Financial Officer)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2006 of AirNet Systems, 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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Dated:  November 14, 2006
    By:

    /s/ Gary W. QualmannPrinted Name:
    Gary W. QualmannTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary 31
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)**

**UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Subhash C. Sarda, certify that: 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NOVT Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingequivalent functions): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 11, 2006
#### HANCOCK v. STATE.

No. 20719.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Robert P. Brown, of San Angelo, and Paul Petty, of Ballinger, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction is for theft, punishment Assessed being two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment properly charges the offense. The record before this court contains neither bills of exception nor statement of facts, hence nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. BABIN.

No. 3387.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Feb. 24, 1939.

Rehearing Denied March 1, 1939.

Orgain, Carroll & Bell, of Beaumont, for appellant.

D. E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This was an action by appellee, Anita Babin, against appellant, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, for benefits under its group policies Nos. G5039 and G554S. On trial to a jury judgment was entered in appellee’s favor for the relief prayed for, from which appellant has duly prosecuted its appeal.

We agree with appellant that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and judgment here rendered against ■appellee that she take nothing. The con•ditions of these policies as to proof of loss were given by this court, and their legal ■effect discussed, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Kornegay, 93 S.W.2d 164; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Warner, 94 S.W.2d 514; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 94 S.W.2d 519; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 99 S.W.2d 946; Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Dugas, 91 S.W.2d 757; Lewis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 94 S.W.2d 499. In the cases cited we held that the proofs of loss were filed too late; in the case at bar there was a longer delay in filing the proof of loss than in any of the cases cited — almost eight years.

As an excuse for her delay, appellee plead “ignorance,” the same plea on identical facts reviewed by us in the Lewis case, supra. There we held that the facts did not excuse the delay.

The only distinguishing fact in this case is the coverture of appellee, which was plead as tolling the statutes of limitation against her cause of action, but not as an éxcuse for her delay in filing proofs of loss. However, the issue is immaterial. The statutes of limitation do not excuse appellee’s failure to furnish proofs of loss. Suggs v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 71 Tex. 579. 9 S.W. 676, 1 L.R.A. 847; Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Williams, Tex. Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 661.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court in favor of appellee must be reversed and judgment here rendered that she take nothing.

Reversed and rendered.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statement 333-53043 on
Form S-8 of Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., of our reports dated February 14,
2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Genesis Health Ventures,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2000 and 1999 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit) and cash
flows and the consolidated financial statement schedule for each of the years in
the three-year period ended September 30, 2000, which reports appear in the
September 30, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for costs of start-up
activities effective October 1, 1999.

Our report also contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company
has suffered recurring losses in each of the years in the three-year period
ended September 30, 2000 and, as of September 30, 2000 has a shareholders'
deficit. In addition, the Company and its consolidated affiliate, The Multicare
Companies, Inc. are in default of various loan agreements and on June 22, 2000
filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements
and consolidated financial statement schedule do not include any adjustments to
reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of
assets or the amounts and classifications of liabilities that might result from
the outcome of this uncertainty.

                                                KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 14, 2001
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v S. Nathan Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Friedlander, J.), rendered September 29, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted forgery in the second degree.

Defendant claims that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient to support the crime charged. Even if it is accepted that this issue was properly preserved for appellate review, we find defendant’s contentions lacking in merit. Basically, defendant argues that a fingerprint card is an instrument defined in Penal Law § 170.10 (2) concerning the forgery of records "filed or required * * * to be filed in or with a public office” and not an instrument under Penal Law § 170.10 (3) which deals with records "officially issued or created by a public office [or] public servant”. It was the latter subdivision that defendant was charged with violating. The basis for defendant’s argument is his claim that because a criminal defendant places his or her fingerprints or signature on the card, it is a document created by that defendant and not by the police agency that takes them. In rejecting this claim, we note that police officers have a statutory obligation to take fingerprints and to submit them to the proper agency *(see,*CPL 160.10, 160.20). Fingerprint cards used to effectuate this requirement are therefore "created by a * * * public servant” and the fact that they are completed by a defendant does not change this result.

*701Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# AGENCY:

 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture.

# ACTION:

 Notice of availability of proposed changes in the Iowa NRCS State Technical Guide for review and comment.

# SUMMARY:

 It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Iowa that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide specifically in Section 4, Practice Standards and Specifications #600, Terrace and #620, Underground Outlet to account for improved technology. These practices can be used in systems that treat highly erodible land.

# DATES:

 Comments will be received on or before March 13, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Leroy Brown, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street, Suite 693, Des Moines, Iowa 50309; at 515/284-4260; fax 515/284-4394.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

Dated: January 19, 2000.

Leroy Brown,

State Conservationist.

[FR Doc. 00-3102  Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-18-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001012271
<NAME> POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,783,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   1,158,059,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             184,020,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             997,560,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    464,726,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 480,251,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               997,560,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,566,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,659,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,361,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,156,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,093,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 93,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,000,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001012141
<NAME> ON SITE SOURCING
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,516,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    458,831
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,188,094
<PP&E>                                       4,339,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,663,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,467,991
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,246
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,663,963
<SALES>                                      6,601,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,601,801
<CGS>                                        5,376,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,908,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (375,374)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (38,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (336,874)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (336,874)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
A99A1980, A99A2150.

#### CROSBY et al. v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; and vice versa.

(548 SE2d 30)

Decided April 13, 2001.

*Cathey & Strain, Edward E. Strain III, David A. Sleppy, James E. Staples, Jr., Cottingham & Porter, Sidney L. Cottingham, Robert L. Porter, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Drew, Eckl & Farnham, W. Wray Eckl, Melanie C. Eyre, Lucian Gillis, Jr., Watson, Spence, Lowe & Chambless, Dawn G. Benson,*for appellee.

Eldridge, Judge.

In *Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Crosby,*273 Ga. 454 (543 SE2d 21) (2001), the Supreme Court found that this Court erred in *Crosby v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,*240 Ga. App. 857 (524 SE2d 313) (1999), “[in] ruling that the trial court was required to admit evidence of consumer claims honored by the tire manufacturer for tires manufactured at the tire plant where the tire involved in this action was manufactured.” *Cooper Tire,*supra,273 Ga. at 454. The Supreme Court found that “[w]ithout an independent showing of a substantial similarity between the purported tire defect that caused the injuries in this case and the basis for the consumer claims that were honored by the manufacturer, this evidence was inadmissible.” Id. Therefore, we vacate that portion of our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded for new trial.*

*Blackburn, C. J., and Barnes, J., concur.*
#### SQUIRES v. STATE.

No. 16296.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 22, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1934.

M. E. Lawrence and Frank Judkins, both of Eastland, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for murder, punishment being three years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts is in the record. We find certain exceptions to. the court’s charge predicated on statements in the written objections to the effect that there was no evidence supporting the instructions to which objections were urged. Also, we find complaint of the refusal of certain special charges. It is impossible to appraise objections to the charge or refusal of special charges without knowing what evidence was before the court and jury.

We note that the court properly instructed the jury that the minimum punishment was two years in the penitentiary under article 1257, P. C., as amended by chapter 274, Acts 40th Leg., R. S. p. 412 (Vernon’s Ann. P. O. art. 1257); but in pronouncing sentence the court inadvertently omitted to give appellant the benefit of the indeterminate sentence as provided in article 775, C. C. P. (1925), as amended by Acts. 1931, e. 207, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 775). The sentence is reformed directing that appellant be confined in the state penitentiary for not less than two nor more than three years.

As thus reformed, the judgment is affirmed.