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








GVI
SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the Annual Report of
GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Restivo, 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 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 result of operations of the
      Company.








March
      16, 2009
              /s/ Joseph RestivoJoseph
      RestivoChief
      Financial Officer
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0982 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-09-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

borescope instect

3R Packing 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 688 $58,480.00

shop inspect 3R 

Packing 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 688 $58,480.00

replacement of 3R 

Packing 1.0 $ 85.00 $488 $ 573.00 21 $12,033.00

total replacement 

cost of LLPs 

affected by 

unacceptable flows

120.0 $10,200.

00 $1,191,000 $1,201,200.00

1

$1,201,200.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,330,193

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $70513

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

1) Per Industry Support Information in GE S/B 72-A1385, Rev.1: GE will provide a 100 percent 

back-end discount from current catalog list price on a new 3R Packing P/N 1471M25P04 (*** 

and this P/N only! ***) to operators who scrap the non-conforming 3R Packing. GE will also 

provide a one hour labor credit for the inspection required.

2) There are 21 nonconforming 3R Packings that need to be located in the fleet and replaced.
Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: The regulatory impact is not likely to be “significant”. This rule will not affect

“substantial number” of small entities.

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Derek Thomas Baldit v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00119-CR

Trial court case number: 2006621

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 7 of Harris County

On November 1, 2016, this case was reinstated following the filing of the sealed 

supplemental clerk’s record in which the trial court, among other things, found that 

appellant was not indigent and further recommended reinstatement of this appeal with a 

November 11, 2016 deadline for appellant to retain counsel and appear on his behalf. 

This Court further ordered the appellant, Derek Thomas Baldit, either to retain counsel 

who shall file an appearance or else appellant shall request an extension of time to file a 

pro se appellant’s brief by November 11, 2016. On November 14, 2016, Michael Corey 

Young filed a notice of appearance as appellant’s counsel in this Court. The Clerk of 

this Court is directed to note Michael Corey Young as lead counsel for appellant and to 

remove Richard Oliver and appellant as counsel for appellant.

After the appellate record was completed in this Court on June 29, 2016, setting

the appellant’s brief initial deadline at July 29, 2016, this Court granted, in part, 

appellant’s original counsel, Richard Oliver, one extension of time to file appellant’s 

brief until August 29, 2016, before he moved to withdraw. Accordingly, appellant’s brief 

is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days of the date of this Order, with no further 

extensions to be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 

38.6(a)(2). Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days from 

the filing of appellant’s brief. See id. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually 

 

Date: November 29, 2016
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00145-CR

Jesus Rivera

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

144th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013CR1573

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 1, 2016
# C_2016297EN.01000901.xml

| 17.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 August 2016

(2016/C 297/08)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1180 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4405 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86677 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4601 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0893 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1752 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,023 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,49 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2695 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4594 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3007 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4577 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4446 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6725 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5498 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5025 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 229,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9346 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4203 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4925 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 641,33 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4757 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,855 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,8869 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,701 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5463 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,2774 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,7779 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1180

JPY

Japanese yen

112,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4405

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86677

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4601

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0893

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1752

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,023

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,49

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2695

RON

Romanian leu

4,4594

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3007

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4577

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4446

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6725

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5498

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5025

KRW

South Korean won

1 229,06

ZAR

South African rand

14,9346

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4203

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4925

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 641,33

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4757

PHP

Philippine peso

51,855

RUB

Russian rouble

71,8869

THB

Thai baht

38,701

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5463

MXN

Mexican peso

20,2774

INR

Indian rupee

74,7779

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6320

CRAIG W. JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-1105) Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig W. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Craig W. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In his federal habeas petition, Jackson raised four claims. With respect to the two claims the district court dismissed as procedurally barred based upon the report of the magistrate judge, we conclude that although they are not procedurally barred, the claims are meritless. The district court concluded that because Jackson raised these claims only in his petition for post-conviction relief before a circuit court in South Carolina (“PCR court”), Jackson’s claims were both unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. While we conclude the claims were not procedurally barred, State v. McKennedy , 559 S.E.2d 850, 852-54- 3 - (S.C. 2002), they were nevertheless properly subject to dismissal. Jackson has failed to show that the state PCR court’s decision on these claims was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or an unreasonable application of the facts in light of the evidence. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). With respect to Jackson’s remaining claims, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing to be entitled to a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2015329EN.01000201.xml

| 6.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 October 2015

(2015/C 329/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1236 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4605 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74020 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3513 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0938 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3870 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,122 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,90 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2449 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4168 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3649 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5853 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4735 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7080 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7272 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5984 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 304,86 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2697 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1417 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6263 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 204,96 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9090 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,193 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,1550 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,854 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4059 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7147 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,3711 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1236

JPY

Japanese yen

135,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4605

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74020

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3513

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0938

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3870

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,122

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,90

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2449

RON

Romanian leu

4,4168

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3649

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5853

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4735

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7080

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7272

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5984

KRW

South Korean won

1 304,86

ZAR

South African rand

15,2697

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1417

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6263

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 204,96

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9090

PHP

Philippine peso

52,193

RUB

Russian rouble

73,1550

THB

Thai baht

40,854

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4059

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7147

INR

Indian rupee

73,3711

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IRAIDA ROLLAND,

Appellant,

v.

RURAL KING and SEDGWICK 

CMS,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1818

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 17, 2016.

An appeal from an order of Judge of Compensation Claims.

Stephen L. Rosen, Judge.

Date of Accident: July 18, 2015.

Katherine Stone of Barbas, Nunez, Sanders, Butler & Hovsepian, Tampa, for 

Appellant.

Christopher A. Thorne of Thorne & Associates, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
-~ .... ,- .. ·-o '; '·· t )· • '·· 1- 1\L-V..._l \' 1-

0PPT CGIC 

2012 ~~us -6 AH 10= 46 

DuPont Corporate Remediation Group 

Chestnut Run Plaza, Building 715 

4417 Lancaster Pike 

August 3, 2012 

Director, Chemical Control Division (7405M) 

Room 4146 EPA East 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-4760 

Attn: EPA Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0113 

Wilmington, DE 19805 

Document Control Office 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East, Room 6428 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-8930 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for a 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program 

(November 3, 2005) 

Re: Quarterly MOU Status Report #6 Phase III- Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington 

Works (August 3, 2012) 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

The Quarterly MOU Status Report #6 Phase Ill- Future Work Plan is submitted in accordance 

with Section V.F.2 of the above-identified MOU. The status report includes a brief description of 

the implementation status of the Phase III Future Work Plan. In addition, this report includes 

West Virginia National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data and granular 

activated carbon (GAC) treatment monitoring data that were received by DuPont as of July 20, 

2012, that are not part of the Phase III MOU monitoring activities, but are provided by DuPont 

for completeness of study. An index of the specific documents included with this status report is 

provided as an Attachment to this letter. 

If you need any additional information or further clarification, please contact me (302-999-6197) 

or Jenny Liu (302-999-3628). 

Very truly yours, 

AndrewS. 

~.&~ Hartten 

Principal Remediation Project Manager 

Attachment: Index of report documents (I page) 

Enclosures: 1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #6 Phase III- August 3, 2012 

I digital copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #6 Phase III- August 3, 2012 

coNTA\NS NO CB 

E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company 
Docket No. OPPT -2004-0113 

EPA-DuPont MOU 

Index 

August 3, 2012 

Quarterly MOU Status Report #6 Phase III- Future Work Plan 

Document/Report Title-Paper Copy 

1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #6 

Phase III- Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington 

Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related 

Environmental Assessment Program) 

Document/Report Title-Electronic Copy 

CD 1 of 1 containing the Quarterly MOU Status Report #6, 

Phase III- Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works 

(OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental 

Assessment Program) as one PDF file titled, 

Quarterly MOU SR #6 Phase III - FWP 080312.PDF 

* Page count does not include blank pages caused by double-sided printing of the tables. 

CONTAINS NO CB 

No. of Pages* 

237 pages 

No. of Pages 

235 pages 

Page 2 of2 OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program
Exhibit 4.1


 





FGI INDUSTRIES LTD.Number Ordinary Shares [certificate cumber] -[shares
in numbers]-Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands Share capital is US$20,000 divided into divided into 200,000,000 shares
of a nominal or par value of US$0.0001 eachTHIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [full name of shareholder] is the registered holder of [number of
shares] Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the [] Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.EXECUTED
on behalf of the said Company on the [] day of [] 20[] by: DIRECTOR
# C_2016049EN.01000301.xml

| 9.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7905 — Hammerson/Allianz Group/Dundrum Town Centre)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 49/05)

On 3 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7905. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7905. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0619

Filed November 23, 2016

OLIVER LITT JR.,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson, 

Judge.

An applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his application for 

postconviction relief alleging his prior attorneys were ineffective. AFFIRMED.

Leah D. Patton, Walcott, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Scott, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2

SCOTT, Senior Judge.

Oliver Litt was convicted, following a jury trial, of murder in the first degree. 

On direct appeal, his conviction was affirmed by this court. State v. Litt, No. 09-

0524, 2010 WL 2383514, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 16, 2010). The facts of the 

underlying crime are sufficiently outlined in our prior decision and need not be 

repeated here. See id. at *1-2. Following the appeal, Litt filed an application for 

postconviction relief (PCR). Litt’s PCR application came on for a hearing at the 

district court on March 13, 2015. The district court issued a ruling denying the

application, and Litt now appeals that denial.

On appeal, Litt raises the same claims he made to the district court—that 

his attorneys were ineffective for: (1) failing to object to the State’s admission of

his police interview into evidence where he discussed rumors his daughter had 

been sexually assaulted by the decedent, (2) not objecting to an incorrect 

statement of the law in the marshalling instruction for willful injury, (3) not 

objecting to a superfluous jury instruction on aiding and abetting, (4) failing to

object to what he believes was improper vouching for the credibility of witnesses 

by the prosecutor during closing arguments, and (5) not challenging on appeal 

the denial of his motion for a mistrial. He claims the cumulative effect of all of 

counsels’ errors resulted in prejudice. 

Having reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm the district 

court’s decision pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e) because the 

district court thoroughly and correctly analyzed all issues raised on appeal and a 

full opinion from this court would not augment or clarify existing case law.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Trinity Biotech plc (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronan O'Caoimh,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


RONAN O'CAOIMH *
-----------------
Ronan O'Caoimh
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2006


*The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.