alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
•CGOVERNMENTOFTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIADepartmentoftheEnvironmentRECEIVED***________SP232000OfficeoftheDirectorEPA.REGIONIIICEP222OO)FFIcEOFREGIONALADMINISTRATORMr.DonaldS.WelshRegionalAdministrator,EPARegion3MailCode3RAOO1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PASubject:CertificationofClassificationasaPriorityIIIEmergencyEpisodePlanRegionQo%DearMlsh:DDOEsubmittedalettertoyouonAugust25,2008,toaddresstherequirementsofSection110(a)(2)(A)-(M)oftheCleanAirActrelevanttothePM2.5nationalambientairqualitystandards.Achartwasenclosedtoidentifythose“infrastructure”requirementsthatwebelievearealreadycontainedintheannualPM2.5SIPrevisionsthathavebeensubmittedtobutnotyetapprovedbyEPA.IncludedwascertificationthatSection110(a)(2)(G),whichaddressesthesignificantharmlevelsandproceduresforstateemergencyepisodeplansestablishedbyEPAin40CFRPart51.150,isintheSIP.Therequirementforastatetosubmitanemergencyepisodeplanisbasedonapriorityregionclassification.ForPM2.5,theclassificationschemethatEPAisplanningtoproposewouldrequireastatewitha24-hourPM2.5concentrationabove140.5jiglm3(usingthemostrecentthreeyearsofdata)todevelopanemergencyepisodeplan.StatesthatdonotmeetthisthresholdwouldbeclassifiedasPriorityIIIandwouldnotberequiredtodevelopanemergencyepisodeplanforPM2.5.PM2.5monitorsintheDistrictshowthatPM2.5concentrationlevelsthepastthreeyearshavebeenwellbelowthe140.5jtg!m3threshold(pleaseseeattached).EPAhasdeterminedthattheDistrictofColumbiaisaClassIIIPriorityArea,andisnotrequiredtoadoptanEmergencyEpisodePlanforPM2.5.Shouldyouhaveanyquestionsorrequireadditionalinformation,pleasecontactmeat(202)535-2600orCecilyBeall,AssociateDirectoroftheAirQualityDivision,at(202)535-2626.Sincerely,&47L1R:EcEIVEDGeorgeS.Hawkins‘$rDirectoricc:JudithKatz,Director,AirProtectionDivision,EPARegion3Xl(3APIIO)ChristinaFernandez,AirQualityPlanningBranch,EPARegion3CecilyBeall,AssociateDirector,AirQualityDivision,DDOEAttachment(1)51NStreetN.E.,6thFloor,Washington,DC20002(202)535-2600FAX(202)535-2881GOVERNMENTOFTHEDISTRICTOFLUMBIADistrictDepartmentoftheEnvironment***AirQualityDivisionDistrictofColumbiaPM2.5MonitoringDatainug/m3forthePastThreeYears(98tIPercentilefortheYear)Monitor200520062007RiverTerrace36.23532.8HainesPoint36.43328.7McMiIlan34.433.232.4i::::]::::__________________________________________________________________________________DLsTRIc1’DFnRTMFNT51NSheet,NE,5thFl.,Washington,DC20002Phone:(202)535-2250Facsimile:(202)481-3771OFTIlEERO\MENT
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 34/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1002
  doi:10.3000/19771002.C_2014.034.pol |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 34 |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 575 lutego 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1002

doi:10.3000/19771002.C_2014.034.pol

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 34

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 575 lutego 2014

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ogłoszenia |
| | POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE |
| | Parlament Europejski |
| 2014/C 034/01 | Decyzja | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

V   Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Parlament Europejski

2014/C 034/01

Decyzja

1

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

V Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Parlament Europejski

| 5.2.2014 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | C 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

C 34/1

---

DECYZJA

2014/C 34/01

SEKRETARZ GENERALNY PARLAMENTU EUROPEJSKIEGO,

uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (EWG, Euratom, EWWiS) nr 259/68 (1) zmienione rozporządzeniem (WE, Euratom) nr 723/2004 (2), a ostatnio rozporządzeniem Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE, Euratom) nr 1080/2010 z dnia 24 listopada 2010 r. zmieniającym regulamin pracowniczy urzędników Wspólnot Europejskich i warunki zatrudnienia innych pracowników Wspólnot Europejskich (3), w szczególności art. 30 tego regulaminu,

uwzględniając decyzję Prezydium z dnia 3 maja 2004 r. w sprawie przekazania uprawnień organowi uprawnionemu do mianowania oraz organowi uprawnionemu do zawierania umów o pracę, ostatnio zmienioną przez Prezydium w dniu 4 maja 2009 r.,

uwzględniając termin wygaśnięcia (31 grudnia 2013 r.) ważności następujących list rezerwowych Parlamentu Europejskiego:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S,

mając na uwadze, że Wspólny Komitet ma wydać opinię w terminie 15 dni roboczych zgodnie z art. 10a regulaminu pracowniczego,

STANOWI, CO NASTĘPUJE:

Artykuł 1

Termin ważności następujących list rezerwowych:

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S

zostaje przedłużony do dnia 31 grudnia 2014 r.

Artykuł 2

Termin ważności następujących list rezerwowych:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S

nie zostaje przedłużony.

Luksemburg, dnia 20 grudnia 2013 r.

Klaus WELLE

Sekretarz Generalny

---

(1)  Dz.U. L 56 z 4.3.1968, s. 1.

1

(2)  Dz.U. L 124 z 27.4.2004, s. 1.

2

(3)  Dz.U. L 311 z 26.11.2010, s. 1.

3

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.0



August 14, 1998

Republic Bancshares, Inc.
111 2nd Avenue NE, Suite 300
St. Petersburg, FL 33701





Republic Bancshares, Inc.:

We are aware that Republic Bancshares, Inc. has incorporated, by reference in
its Registration Statement File No. 333-32151, its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1998, which includes our report dated August 13, 1998, covering
the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to
Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



By   /s/ William J. Meurer
    -----------------------------------     
       William J. Meurer
#### IN RE: TJ PLAZA LLC, Debtor, TJ Plaza, LLC; DSWC, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. Bank NA, as Trustee on behalf of the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-C6, Defendant-Appellee. *554In re: TJ Plaza, LLC, Debtor, TJ Plaza, LLC; DSWC, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. Bank NA, as Trustee on behalf of the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-C6, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16968, No. 15-16969

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 18, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed April 24, 2017

Zachariah Larson, Esquire, Matthew C. Zirzow, Esquire, Larson *&*Zirzow, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Blakeley E. Griffith, Esquire, Attorney, Kelly Harrison Dove, Esquire, Attorney, Charles E. Gianelloni, Attorney, Robert Richard Kinas, Esquire, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FERNANDEZ-and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We dismiss these consolidated appeals because the appellants were the prevailing parties in the district court, and there is nothing in the judgment that can be reformed on appeal. “A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” *United States v. Good Samaritan Church,*29 F.3d 487, 488 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting *Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co.,*307 U.S. 241, 242, 59 S.Ct. 860, 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939)). There is no exception to the general rule here because “[determinations which are immaterial to the judgment below have no preclusive effect on subsequent litigation, especially if they cannot be appealed” and because, “[t]o the extent that the district court order was not favorable to appellants, it does not bind them in subsequent litigation.” *Id.*at 489.

These consolidated appeals are DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350)



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/    WILLIAM J.
VELARDOWilliam J. VelardoChief Executive Officer Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityAugust 10, 2005




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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topics: Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Analysis of OCT and Related Modalities for Ocular Diseases.                    

*Date:*                         March 16, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Susan Gillmor, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (240) 762-3076,                         *susan.gillmor@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 2, 2022. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04752 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0336 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0336

**2001/336/EC: Commission Decision of 18 April 2001 amending Decision 1999/710/EC on the drawing-up of provisional lists of third-country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 1075) **

*
Official Journal L 120 , 28/04/2001 P. 0039 - 0040 *

Commission Decision

of 18 April 2001

amending Decision 1999/710/EC on the drawing-up of provisional lists of third-country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations

(notified under document number C(2001) 1075)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/336/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third-country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Council Decision 2001/4/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) A provisional list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations was drawn up by Commission Decision 1999/710/EC(3).

(2) The Slovak Republic has sent a list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishments are in accordance with the Community rules.

(3) A provisional list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations can thus be drawn up for the Slovak Republic in accordance with the procedure laid down in Decision 95/408/EC in respect of certain countries.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text of the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex to Commission Decision 1999/710/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 April 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 281, 4.11.1999, p. 82.

ANNEX

Country: SLOVAK REPUBLIC

>TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

'"!'^-^iT Or 

-rORTAu •••;,^^ 

• " 1 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive 

Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and 

Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

DOT-OST-1995-272 

formerly 

Docket 49233 

STATUS REPORT 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: July 29, 2011. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Samuel Podberesky 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Dayton Lehman, Jr. 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

William J. Wagner s ^ (I 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7 J 52 
Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

1 hereby certify that on this 29th day of July, 2011, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations. M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By Personal Service 

The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Bv First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Nonon Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
#### Case *vs.*Roberts.

Traverse.

[Mr. Trimble for plaintiff: Mr. Owsloy for defendant.]

From ti-ie Circuit Court eor Nicholas County.

*November*3.

The proceedings in the country, in cases of forcible entry and detain-er, are not to be strictly scanned.

The warrant charged a' forcible entry *and*detainer’ the dePts were found “guil' ty of the forcible entry *or*detainer complained of:” the verdict vyas sufficient; for there can be but one judgment, and that thesam'e for either, orboth of the offences.

The want of, a judg’t upon the verdict, is no ground for dismissing the traverse in the circuit court. It is the finding, not the judg’t, that is traversed. At least,the patty agáinst whom the verdict was found cannot complain that it not followed by a judgprent.

Judge Ewing-

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Case sued out a warrant of forcible entry *and*detainer against Willis and Edward Roberts, and the jury found a verdict, that “they wei’e guilty of the forcible enty *or*detainer complained of in the warrant.”

The Robefteses immediately traversed the inquisition, and took the case to the Circuit Court. After a trial, and verdict, and new trial awarded, and the removal of the cause to another circuit, by change of venue, the Robertses moved the Court to quash the inquisition: first—because no judgment of restitution was rendered by the justice, and, second—because the verdict was in the alternative.

We think both grounds are untenable, and that the Court erred in quashing the inquisition.

It has often been said-by this court, that verdicts and proceedings in the country, under the statute of forcible entries and detainers should not be strictly scanned. If they were, the statute, which was enacted for beneficial purposes, might almost be rendered a dead letter.

The verdict finds that the defendants are guilty of one *or*the other offence *charged,*which implies that they are guilty of either of the offences with-which the warrant charges them, and as the warrant charges them with both, it is tantamount to finding them guilty of both.

But, as the judgment of restitution is precisely the same, and the effect upon the defendants the same, in either alternative; and as the verdict must at any rate, be construed to mean that they are guilty of one or the, other, it can be of no avail to the# defendants which, since their duties and responsibilties are the same ia either event.

*597Nor do we deem it essential, after a traverse, that a judgment should have been rendered. It is the *inquest*that may be traversed, and not the *judgment*on the inquest. And when traversed, and transferred to the Circuit Court, the judgment, if rendered, would be unvailing. Besides, we cannot perceive how the interest of the defendants could be affected ■ by the failure of the justice to render a judgment *against them,*or upon what principle *they*could predicate a motion to quash the *inquest,*because such judgment was not rendered.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, that the order quashing the inquisition, may be set aside, and further proceedings had.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-14623 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 31, 2017)

*843Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office — FLM, Ocala, FL, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Donald L. Hansen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before HULL, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George C. Bedell, III, appointed counsel for Jose Angel Hernandez-Martinez in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hernandez-Martinez’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### John KARCZEWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K MOTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-55588

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 6, 2017* Pasadena, California

Filed July 10, 2017

Russell Clive Handy, Esquire, Mark D. Potter, Esquire, Potter Handy LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jane A. Rheinheimer, Esquire, Rhein-heimer Smigliani, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Christopher Chen-Hsin Wang, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America

Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argu*629ment. Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*629MEMORANDUM **

We vacate the district court’s dismissal of this action, and we remand for reconsideration in light of Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley, LLC, No. 15-55633.

VACATED and REMANDED. Costs on appeal awarded to Plaintiff.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,

acquiescing dubitante:

I acquiesce *dubitante*for the reasons articulated in my separate opinion in *Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley, LLC,*No. 15-55633.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Neibert, 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:





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





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





Date:  May 18, 2010




/s/ David W. NeibertDavid W. NeibertChief Executive Officer


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