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



Certifications of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of LightPath Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge, that:



1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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: September 21, 2005 |  | /S/ KENNETH BRIZEL     
|                          |  | Kenneth Brizel,        
|                          |  | Chief Executive Officer



The certifications set
forth above are being furnished as an exhibit to the Report solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05626]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 24, 2015

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2007-0066.
    Date Filed: January 20, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: February 10, 2015.
    Description: Application of Hainan Airlines Co., Ltd. (``Hainan 
Airlines'') requesting an amendment to Hainan Airlines' foreign air 
carrier permit to enable it to engage in scheduled foreign air 
transportation of persons, property and mail between (i) Beijing, 
People's Republic of China (PEK), on the one hand, and San Jose, 
California (SJC), on the other hand, and (ii) Shanghai, People's 
Republic of China (PVG), on the one hand, and Seattle, Washington 
(SEA), on the other hand. Hainan Airlines also requests exemption 
authority to the extent necessary so that it may exercise the rights 
requested in this application prior to the issuance of an amended 
foreign air carrier permit.

 Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2015-05626 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9x-P
### FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866

Section 6(a)(3)(E) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to identify for the public, in a complete, clear, and simple manner, those changes in a regulatory action made at the suggestion or recommendation of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of M anagement and Budget. Place a copy of this form in the docket and in the project folder.

Title of Rulemaking:

Regulatory Identification Number:

____X___ _ OIRA did not review the rulemaking document.

__________ OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, but did not suggest or recommend any changes.

___________ OIRA reviewed the rulema king document, and we have documented the changes we made at OIRA’s suggestion or

recommendation in an attachment to this sheet.

____________________ _12/21/09__________ Signature of Analyst Date

Attachment [Attach a list of the changes we have made to the rulemaking document at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. Use a list rather than a redline/strikeout version of the document.]
REF ID:A667.ifl ... :C.'-.-ii y . Y" 

David Kahn 

Windsor Gate 

Great Neck, New York 

General G. B· Erskine, USMC (Ret) 

Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 

De:pe.rtment of Defense 

Washington 25, D. C. 

Dear General Erskine: 

February 9, 1955 

On behal.1" of the New York Cipher Society, I want to thank you for 

your fu11 and thoughtful replay to our statement "To Improve Our 

Cr;yptographic Defenses." It is petition and interaction of this sort 

between the government and interested citizens that has helped to make 

this country great'. · . , ~ ,. With respect to your statement, I would repeat the Society's feeling I • a .. .... .. that the government is doing an exc_ellent job in the cryptographic field. : :..., r - ,. We were e$_peciall.y strengthened ~n this feeling by hearing of the Scientific 

Advisory ~oard, the pr.nels of specialists, and the contracts with laboratories ~.μni.versiti~s~ However·, it seems ~o-:us that the Society's philosophy of 

crtphoe;raphic secJrity remains at~ odds ~with ·the goverll?OOnt's. In this regard, 

two. ~ints at the ~ruX or" the matter deserve reply. - .:,. 't!. I ,,. • ·-

.. , • #'t -; .. ~ ~ .. .. ,:." • ... ~ ...... - -

-:<>~ is that, in our view, our position -- pu-ti.cularly that with regard 

to cryp-togra~ic textboo:k:s --Ldoes not violate either the letter or the 

SJ(i~i t". ~t" ~b~i~ ~w _5~3 •. This, law is. ~signed to prevent disclosure of iweci~ic c~r .. 9r,..cj.phe~ JYSte!DSi the ~~-c.iety agrees with this wholeheartedly but r~affirms tbft ~he_principles of cryptography should be publicly dissem- i:Date~ by the gover~~t~ Secondly;we·feel that your letter sidestepped the 

q~s:t:t.o~ of whe~J:ie! J;Ee!e is ~-¥~ea; ~or a potential pool of cryptographers 

and hQ1. ~his shoU}~ape..pui~t up. _While heartily approving the Armed Forces 

training pro~, we believe that -it does not go far enoμgh in assuring the 

nation of 1.:h.e c"'i-YPt~ai>hers ·1t'.may suddenly need. ' ... ; .... ' 7 fJ' fl: .. ,... .. 

It is un:rort~te· tba.t the govermnent and the Society disagree on a 

matter so vital to the :Dation's security. However, we can both take heart 

from. the f'acts that the disagreement lies only in the means, not in the 

ends, and that disagreements, at least in this democracy, usually lead to a 

better way of doing things. 

COPY 

Very truly yours, 

s/ David Kahn 

President 

New York Cipher Society 

. @'pproved for Release by NSA on 04~30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-51244) pertaining to the Discount Auto Parts, Inc. 1992 Team Members
Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No 333-55512)
pertaining to the Discount Auto Parts, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84058) pertaining to the Discount Auto
Parts, Inc. Non Employee Director Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-91311) pertaining to the Discount Auto Parts, Inc. Amended and
Restated 1995 Stock Option Plan, of our report dated June 29, 2001, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Discount Auto Parts, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended May 29, 2001.




Tampa, Florida
August 22, 2001
|   | (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                for the periods reflected therein. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 13, 2008 | /s/                Michael G. Livingston          |   |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                | Michael                G. Livingston              |
|                                | President,                Chief Executive Officer |

|   | /s/                John E. Porter      |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John                E. Porter          |
|   | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION





Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Jon Elliott,  President,  CEO,  and  Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of
Baymark Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:

1. The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10QSB of the  Company  for the  period  ended
April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (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.

         Dated:  September 16, 2004           Officer:   Jon Elliott

                                        Name:       /s/ Jon Elliott
                                                    ----------------------------
                                        Position:  President, CEO
Public Comments ( Posted

September 30, 2016)

Final PSD Permit Decision for

the MCU Facility
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                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 North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
M. Healy, Chief Financial 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:

        (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/S/ Daniel M. Healy
-------------------
Daniel M. Healy
Chief Financial Officer
August 6, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theCompany’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 (RegistrationNumbers 333-11669, 333-42403 and 333-130077) and on Form S-3(Registration Numbers 333-08391 and 333-08216), of our report datedMarch  29,  2006, on our audit of the financial statementsof CPI Aerostructures, Inc. as of and for the years endedDecember  31,  2005 and 2004, appearing in the 2005 AnnualReport on Form 10-K.

|  | /s/ J.H. CohnLLPJericho, New YorkMarch  29,2006 |
|--|-------------------------------------------------|

----
e 

I 

I ' 

; 

! ' 

i 

I 

I 

~ juf~~ I \ . I 

! 

i 
I f ~--... 

-,jl ~".'" ~L~~ I ' I -J : I i, I I I : 

; ' I 

_ . .....,.... --·-····-. -. . 

i 

I 

l 

-=--

J 

d 
" 

_I --L--+-----

1 

----
NO. 07-01-0363-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 11, 2001

______________________________

ROYCE L. WELLINGTON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2001-435768; HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.

Pending before the Court is a “Motion for Appeal of Conviction,” filed by appellant

Royce L. Wellington, and a Clerk’s Record as to Cause Number 2001-435,768 in the 140th

District Court of Lubbock County. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

 By his Motion for Appeal appellant sought the trial court’s approval to appeal from

his conviction pursuant to a plea-bargained guilty plea for Aggravated Perjury. The
2

judgment was signed on June 1, 2001; sentence was imposed on June 1, 2001; no Motion

for New Trial was filed except to the extent appellant’s Motion for Appeal could be

construed as an untimely Motion for New Trial; appellant’s Motion for Appeal was filed on

August 28, 2001. 

 In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by timely filing a notice of appeal. TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a). The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence

is imposed or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order, unless a timely

motion for new trial is filed. TRAP 26.2(a). A motion for new trial may be filed by a

criminal defendant no later than 30 days after the date sentence is imposed in open court.

TRAP 21.4(a). The time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended for 15 days under

certain circumstances. TRAP 26.3. If the time for filing a notice of appeal is to be

extended, both a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time which complies with

TRAP 10.5(b) must be filed within the 15 day period. TRAP 26.3; Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 523-25 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). 

An untimely-filed notice of appeal will not invoke the jurisdiction of the court of

appeals. See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Thus, if an

appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the

merits of the appeal, and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Slaton v.

State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d at 523-25.
3

To the extent appellant’s Motion for Appeal is a Motion for New Trial it was not

timely to extend the time for filing notice of appeal; to the extent appellant’s Motion for

Appeal is a notice of appeal, it was not timely filed. A motion to extend time to file notice

of appeal was not filed. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over this

proceeding. Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523. 

The matter is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. TRAP 39.8, 40.2, 43.2. 

Phil Johnson

 Justice

Do not publish.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John A. Smith, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 648]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Harold L. Galloway, J.), rendered December 7, 1995. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) and attempted robbery in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]). We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied his motion seeking to suppress his inculpatory statements to police. We reject the contention of defendant that his statements should be suppressed under the *Rogers*rule based on his representation in an unrelated criminal proceeding *(see People v Burdo,*91 NY2d 146 [1997]) inasmuch as “there is no evidence in the record that the interrogating police officers had any knowledge ... of defendant’s representation by counsel therein” *(People v Johnson,*61 NY2d 932, 934 [1984]). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]) and that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0013

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KELLY BEVERLY BALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2021

12/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          30,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,581)
<INVENTORY>                                    125,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               296,402
<PP&E>                                         169,377
<DEPRECIATION>                               (101,466)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          173,503
<BONDS>                                        108,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,028
<SALES>                                        255,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               318,197
<CGS>                                          169,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  209,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               138,417
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,249
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,829
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (35,218)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,784
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,002)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ninman, Respondent, vs. Suhr, Appellant.

*October 25*

November *8, 1895.*

*Written contract: Parol evidence: Modification: Pleading.*

*1.*Parol evidence is inadmissible to show what was said at the time of and before the making of a written contract, for the purpose of varying its terms.

2. A party pleading and claiming under a written contract cannot show a modification thereof, subsequent to its execution, which was not pleaded.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Dodge county: Cheis. A. Oheistiansoe, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $100, and from the • judgment thereon the defendant appealed.

Eor the appellant there was a brief by *Malone & Baeh-*huber, and oral argument *by J. JE. Malone.*

*George W. Sloan,*for the respondent.

Maeshall, J.

The complaint sets out a cause of action to recover $150 for certain personal property plaintiff alleges to have sold to defendant for that sum. The answer of defendant contains a general denial, and a counterclaim, so called, to the effect that a part of the personal property, sold for $50, was sold to be applied on a note held by defendant against the plaintiff, and had been so applied, and that plaintiff was indebted to defendant for damages for removing from leased premises before the expiration of his term, and for failing to work the premises in a workmanlike manner during the period of occupation.

A lease was introduced in evidence, under which plaintiff had occupied the premises mentioned in the answer, as defendant’s tenant. Several questions were asked of defendant and the person who drew the lease in respect to conversa*393tions had between plaintiff and defendant in relation to the contract or lease at the time it was made, and previous thereto. Such questions, on objections made by plaintiff’s counsel, were ruled out, to which rulings defendant’s counsel excepted. The rulings of the trial court in that regard were ' correct. Parol evidence was not admissible to show what was said at the time of and before the making of the contract, for the purpose of varying its terms. This is elementary. Evidence was likewise properly ruled out tending to show a subsequent modification of the written contract, because no such modification was pleaded.

Several other errors are assigned, but a careful examination of the record fails to disclose any reversible error.

*By the*Gov/rt.— The judgment of the county court is affirmed.
November 17, 2016

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2457

Re: Court of Appeals No. 03-16-00711-CV

 Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-15-000379

Style: Saltworks Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Bruegger’s Bagels

vs.

Residences at the Spoke, LLC & Transwestern Development Company, LLC

Dear Mr. Kyle,

I respectfully request a thirty-day extension on this appeal. The record is due on November 17, 

2016. Due to court records, appellate records, and my time in court, I will be unable to file the 

appeal on the date it is due.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Please contact me if you have any 

questions. My e-mail address is alicia.racanelli@traviscountytx.gov.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Alicia Racanelli

Alicia Racanelli

Official Court Reporter

Alicia Racanelli, CSR

Official Court Reporter

201st Judicial District Court

Room 327

1000 Guadalupe Street

Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: (512) 854-4028

Fax: (512) 854-2268