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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reed J. Killion, President andPrincipal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| · | The Report fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| · | The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                  |

 
| Date:  | May 12,  2008 | By:    | /s/ Reed J.  Killion                                        |
|--------|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |               |   | Reed J. Killion,  President and Principal Executive Officer |

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and willbe retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

 

----
Exhibit
32.01



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 Amended Annual Report of Bold Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending
July 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eden
Clark, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations
of the Company.



|                        |                                                            
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                        | By: /s/ Eden Clark                                         
|Date: November 16, 2012 | Eden Clark                                                 
|                        | President, Chief Executive Officer                         
|                        | Chief Financial Officer, Director, Secretary,
    Treasurer







A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
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 Electric Aquagenics Unlimited, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gaylord M. Karren, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.



DATE:  August 13, 2004







/s/ Gaylord M. Karren___________

Gaylord M. Karren

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

Electric Aquagenics Unlimited, Inc.
Exhibit 13.1



CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers
of Ecopetrol S.A. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  May 30, 2017 |     |                          
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------
|                     | By: | /s/ Juan Carlos Echeverry
|                     |     | Name:                    
|                     |     | Title:                   
|Dated:  May 30, 2017 |     |                          
|                     | By: | /s/ María Fernanda Suárez
|                     |     | Name:                    
|                     |     | Title:
Exhibit 13.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report ofChina Networks International Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Li Shuangqing, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2010 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011.
 
 /s/Li ShuangqingName:
Li ShuangqingTitle:

Date:
Acting Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2012
 
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 EAU Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wade R. Bradley,
      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 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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DATE:
      August 14, 2007


/s/
              Wade
              R. BradleyWade
                R. Bradley
              Chief
                  Executive Officer
                EAU
                  Technologies, Inc.
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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.
 Date: August 11, 2005
    
    /s/ KEVIN ARMSTRONG
Kevin ArmstrongChief Executive OfficerDate: August 11, 2005
    
    /s/ CYNTHIA JAMISON
Cynthia JamisonChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cosi, Inc. and will be retained by Cosi, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
Donald R. NAPPIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105816

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: October 16, 2018

Damien De Loyola, Amanda R. Langenheim, Co-Counsel, 920 Main Street, Suite 500, Kansas City, MO. 65203, for appellant.

Julia E. Neidhardt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Donald R. Nappier appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 (2014) motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b) (2018).
* Pursuant to Local rule 47 .5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________
No. 95-10923 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO PACHECO-MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas (3:95-CR-064-R)

______________________________________________ May 22, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant appeals his conviction for possession with intent to

distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, challenging the

district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. We

have reviewed his arguments and the record and find no error in the

district court's reasoning announced at the conclusion of the June

15, 1995, suppression hearing. We have no jurisdiction to consider

Appellant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion inasmuch as the district2

court has not ruled on such a motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Lawrence J. Spanley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance,
Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 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. Date: November 12, 2004
    /s/ Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.Chief Financial Officer, Vice President -
Finance, Treasurer and Secretary
Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. A signed original of this written statement or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by Bakers Footwear
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Takedown Entertainment
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending July 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peter Wudy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certification as of October 20, 2010.

/s/Peter Wudy Peter Wudy, Chief
Executive Officer

---
Dack DAUGHERTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106714

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 2, 2019

FOR APPELLANTS: Randall Brachman, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Mary Highland Moore, Eric Schmitt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Dack Daugherty appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on a single allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no clear error because Daugherty failed to plead facts not refuted by the record warranting relief. Thus, no evidentiary hearing was required.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).
ex107.htm


    Exhibit
10.7

    Schedule of Board
Fees

    


    


    The
Compensation Committee and Board of Directors of Lakeland Financial Corporation
adopted the following fee schedule effective January 1, 2010:

     

    
      	
              Annual
      Director Retainer:

            	 
      	
              $

            	
               15,000

            	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Annual
      Audit Committee Chairman Retainer:

            	 
      	
              $

            	
               19,000

            	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Annual
      Lead Director and Compensation Committee Chairman
Retainer:

            	 
      	
              $

            	
               19,000

            	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Annual
      Governance Committee Chairman Retainer:

            	 
      	
              $

            	
              16,000

            	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Board
      Meeting
      Fee:                                                                               

            	 
      	
              $

            	
               800

            	 
      	
              per
      meeting

            	 
      
	
              Committee
      Meeting
      Fee:                                                                               

            	 
      	
              $

            	
               700

            	 
      	
              per
      meeting

            	 
      
	
              Annual
      stock grant:

            	 
      	 
      	
              500

            	 
      	
              shares
Jonathan L. FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81246

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: February 26, 2019 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 26, 2019

Susan L. Hogan, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Daniel N. McPherson, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Fields appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).
In re the Matter of: M.J.S. and M.S., Appellants, v. A.D., Respondent.

WD 80783

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: March 6, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 1, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018

Jason Conkright, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellants.

William Quitmeier, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Victor C. Howard, and Cynthia L. Martin, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

M.J.S. and M.S. appeal a Platte County Circuit Court judgment setting aside a Decree of Adoption pursuant to Rule 74.06. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
BOBBY JINDAL GOVERNOR



# ~tate 

# ofJLoui.siana DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITY 

## ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES March 6, 2012 PEGGY M. HATCH S)lCRETARY

AI 159703 and AI 159704 Mr. Bill K. Honker Director, WaterQuality Protection Division US Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 6 1445 RossAvenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX75202-2733 Re: Vessel General Permit (VGP), AI 159703, and SmallVessel General Permit(sVGP), AI 159704 CleanWaterAct (CWA) Section401 Certification Dear Mr. Honker: In accordance with Section 401 ofthe CWA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) regulations (LAC Title 33, Part IX, Subpart 1, Chapter 15), LDEQ certifies that the two draftgeneral permits proposed by EPA covering discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels comply with state law and applicable provisions of the CWA
- Sections 208(e), 301 (technology based effluent limitations), 302 (water quality based effluent limitations), 303 (water quality standards and implementation plans), 306 (national standards of performance), and 307 (toxic and pretreatmenteffluentstandards). One general permit called the Vessel General Permit (VGP), AI 159703, covers discharges incidental to the normal operation ofcommercial vessels and recreational vessels greaterthan or equal to 79 feet. The other general permit called the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP), AI 159704, covers discharges incidentalto the normal operation of non-military and non-recreational vessels lessthan 79 feet in length. On February 10, 2012, the LDEQ public noticed a proposal to issue 401 Certification for the two draft general permits proposed by EPA. This public notice was published in The Advocate. of Baton Rouge (the official state journal), the Times Picayune of New Orleans, the Times of Shreveport, the News Star of Monroe, the Courier of Houma, the Town Talk of Alexandria, the Advertiser of Lafayette, and the American Press of Lake Charles; and was distributed to the LDEQ public notice mailing list. No comments were received. The state is not requiring additional requirements as part of this 401 Certification. Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please contact Bruce Fielding at (225) 219-3132 ore-mail bruce.fielding@la.gov.

Sam 

### L. Phillips, Assistant Secretary

PosrOfficeBox 4313 •Baton Rouge,Louisiana70821-4313 •Phone225-219-3181 •Fax 225-219-3309 www.deg.louisiana.govBill K. Honker March 

### 6, 2012 Page 

### 2

ec: JoshWaldmeier, Waldmeier.Josh@epamail.epa.gov Brad Crawford, Crawford.Brad@epamail.epa.gov Claudia Hosch, Hosch Claudia@epamarl.epa.gov
#### In the Matter of Francis M., Respondent, v Anne M., Appellant. In the Matter of Juliette M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Anne M., Appellant; Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 822]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2000, which, in joint proceedings for custody brought by the subject child’s father against the child’s mother and for neglect brought by the Administration for Children’s Services against the mother, unanimously affirmed insofar as it denied the mother’s motion for modification of prior temporary custody orders so as to take temporary custody from the father and give it to the mother or the child’s maternal grandparents, and the appeal therefrom unanimously dismissed insofar as it denied the mother’s motion for letters rogatory to take the deposition upon written questions of the father’s brother in Ireland, all without costs.

That portion of the order denying modification of custody is appealable as of right since the determination of custody is contingent upon the outcome of the neglect proceeding (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; *see, Matter of Peter R. v Denise R.,*163 AD2d 558). On the merits, Family Court properly denied a temporary change of custody given the credibility issues associated with the affidavit of the father’s brother that the mother presented in support of the requested change, and appropriately indicated that the mother’s only practical recourse was to have the father’s brother personally appear in court to testify at the *280joint custody and neglect trial that was actually in progress at the time the mother made the motion for the change *(see, David W. v Julia W.,*158 AD2d 1, 6; *Lazich v Lazich,*189 AD2d 750, 751-752). That portion of the order denying the issuance of letters rogatory is not appealable as of right since the disclosure sought from the father’s brother strictly pertains to the father’s fitness to maintain the custody for which he petitioned and has no bearing on the neglect proceeding against the mother (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; *see, Firestone v Firestone,*44 AD2d 671). We note that leave to appeal has already been denied. Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.