alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Inveresk Research Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
S. Nimmo, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

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

                                       /s/ Walter S. Nimmo
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Walter S. Nimmo
                                       Chief Executive Officer, President and
                                       Director
                                       August 6, 2003
Antoine D. BARTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105526

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: April 17, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 2018. Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Jeannie M. Willibey, 920 Main Street, Suite 500, Kansas City, MO 64105.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J. and Sherri B. Sullivan and Kurt S. Odenwald, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Barton appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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 Sinewire Networks Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick Ward; the President and 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 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.

Date: November 14, 2003

Patrick Ward

/s/ Patrick Ward	President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



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



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



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                    
|Leo F. Wells, III Principal Executive Officer
March 27, 2007



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                    
|Douglas P. Williams Principal Financial
Officer March 27, 2007
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 02/72-0627]

Notice is hereby given that Accretive Investors SBIC, L.P., 51 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor, New York, NY, 10010, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730).  Accretive Investors SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity financing to Axiant, LLC, 2727 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30339.  The financing is contemplated for working capital and debt repurchase. 

The financing is brought within the purview of 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Accretive II, LP; Accretive Blocker, LP; Accretive II Coinvestment Partners, LP and Accretive Coinvestment Partners, LLC, all Associates of Accretive Investors SBIC, L.P., in the aggregate own more than ten percent of Axiant, LLC.

Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring an exemption.  Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Acting Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: February 5, 2009.

Harry Haskins,

Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. E9-5738 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
TelVue Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-87631) of TelVue Corporation of our report dated March 30, 2009
relating to the balance sheets of TelVue Corporation and subsidiary as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' deficit and cash flows for the years then ended, which
report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of TelVue
Corporation. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding
uncertainties as to the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern.

/s/ Pressman Ciocca Smith LLP
Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania
March 30, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro Reyes, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 584]

Appeal by the defen*484dant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered April 14, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Carlos JOHNSON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105259

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Filed: May 15, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 19, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018

Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Kent E. Gipson, 121 E. Gregory Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64114, For Defendant/Appellant

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Johnson appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and record on appeal and conclude the trial court committed no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
No. 09-863.

#### Michael Russo, et al., Petitioners v. Roderick O’Neal, et al.

559 U.S. 1007, 130 S. Ct. 1897,

176 L. Ed. 2d 366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2601.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 281 P.3d 1215.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ingo K. Kozak, the Vice President Finance & Administration and
CFO, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bio-Lok
International Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual 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, nor misleading with respect to
the period covered by this annual report;

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

4.     The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for the establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have;

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report
is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses
in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls; and

6.     The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in
this annual report whether there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regards to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|                       |  |                                        
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: February 2, 2004 |  | /s/ Ingo K. Kozak, VP  Finance and CFO
|                       |  |                                        
|                       |  |                                        
|                       |  | Signature and Title
Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

In an April 7, 2008 telephone call between John Schakenbach (EPA) and Steve Mandel (Spectra 

Gases, a small specialty gas company (now a part of Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases, a 

large company)), Steve Mandel stated that if companies needed to meet ISO 17025, it would 

increase EPA Protocol gas cylinder costs by $250-$300 per cylinder.
#### Henry Moore *et al. v.*D. C. Thorn *et al.*

(No. 7067)

Submitted March 15, 1932.

Decided March 22, 1932.

*Wm. T. George,*for appellant.

*W. Bruce Talbott,*for appellees.

Maxwell, Judge:

The question involved in this appeal is whether a *bona fide*purchaser will be preferred over general creditors to the extent of cash paid by the purchaser to an insolvent debtor at the time of sale.

In August, 1926, Thorn, after an unsuccessful attempt to convey his personalty to his brother, sold his two horses and a quantity of lumber — variously estimated from 40,000 to 70,000 feet — to Mertie E. Teter. Thorn was insolvent at the time. For the horses she paid Thorn $75.00, and later paid $124.76 on a note given by Thorn and endorsed by one Gibson, between whom there was an understanding that Gibson should have the horses until the note was paid; and *38as consideration for the lumber, she paid Thorn $200.00 in cash, cancelled a then existing debt in her favor against him for $625.66, and agreed to market the lumber, pay the landlord for the timber cut, and apply any profits thereon to Thorn’s debts. Plaintiffs, creditors of Thorn, instituted their respective suits (consolidated in the trial court), charging that the sale was fraudulent, preferential, and without consideration.

The chancellor decreed the transaction to be a preference in favor of Teter to the extent of her pre-existing debt and set it aside as a preference, and referred the cause to a commissioner in chancery who reported the debts against Thorn, giving to Teter a preference over the general creditors for the amount of cash paid by her in the transaction ($75.00 and $200.00). Upon hearing on the commissioner’s report, exceptions being made to ■ the preference, the court decreed that she was not entitled to such preference, and from this decree Teter appealed.

No fraud was shown as against Teter. She was acting in good faith and her purpose was to save loss of her preexisting debt. The transaction simply violated the law against preference by an insolvent debtor. She was a *Iona fide*purchaser, and was entitled to a preference of the cash paid by her, and to participate ratably with other general creditors on her pre-existing debt. The principle of law governing here is established in *Herold*v. *Barlow,*47 W. Va. 750, 36 S. E. 8. It was error to sustain the exceptions to the commissioner’s report in this regard, and the decree is reversed in so far only as it precludes appellant from preference of the actual moneys paid by her in the purchase of the two horses and the lumber, and the cause remanded.

*Reversed in part; remanded.*
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-75,893; AP-75,894; AP-75,895

EX PARTE MICHAEL RAY HARRISON, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 95260-A, 96141-A, & 96552-A IN THE

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

firearm by a felon, enhanced; burglary of a habitation, habitual; and possession of less than one gram

of methamphetamine, habitual, and sentenced to ten years, twenty-five years, and twenty years

imprisonment, respectively.
HARRISON - 2

Applicant contends that his pleas were involuntary because the plea agreement cannot be

followed. We remanded these applications to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of

law. The trial court conducted a hearing and determined that Applicant pled guilty pursuant to an

agreement that these sentences would run concurrently with a federal sentence. Federal statutes

require the federal sentence to begin when the state sentences expire. Applicant is entitled to relief.

Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Relief is granted. The judgments in Cause Nos. 95260, 96141, & 96552 in the Criminal

District Court of Jefferson County are set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the

Sheriff of Jefferson County to answer the charges against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: April 9, 2008

Do Not Publish
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report on Form  10-K/A for the year ended
December  31,  2006  (the   "Report")   of  FMS   Financial   Corporation   (the
"Corporation") as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof, we, Craig W. Yates,  President and Chief Executive Officer, and Channing
L. Smith, Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer,  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 results of operations of the
Corporation.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                           <C>
/s/ Craig W. Yates                                            Channing L. Smith
--------------------------------------------------            --------------------------------------------
Craig W. Yates                                                Channing L. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer                         Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                                              (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
</TABLE>

May 14, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P., Pecos

County, City of Fort Stockton, Pecos

County Water Control and Improvement

District No. 1, and Brewster County

Groundwater Conservation District

,

Appellant s

,

v.

Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation

District

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 382

- C V

Appeal from the

83 rd District Court

of Pecos C ounty, Texas

(TC# P

- 7047

- 83

- CV )

O R D E R

The Court on its own motion VACATES the June 22, 2017 submission setting for the

above styled and numbered cause pending a ruling on the Joint Motion to Vacate the District

Court’s Judgment without Regard to Merits and Remand Case to Appellee District.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31 st day of May , 20 1 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
In the MATTER OF Jay Anthony MULLINAX, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001153

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 16, 2019

**260ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks this Court to transfer Respondent to incapacity *912inactive status pursuant to Rule 28, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, or place Respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(c), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The petition also seeks the appointment of the Receiver pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is transferred to incapacity inactive status until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for Respondent's client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts Respondent may maintain. Mr. Lumpkin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of Respondent's clients. Mr. Lumpkin may make disbursements from Respondent's trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts Respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating account(s) of Respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent Respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and **261shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive Respondent's mail and the authority to direct that Respondent's mail be delivered to Mr. Lumpkin's office.

Mr. Lumpkin's appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless an extension of the period of appointment is requested.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*, C. J.

FOR THE COURT