alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


           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  Viridax   Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      1.    The Report 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 operation
            of the Company.


Signature:                        Title               Date

/s/ Richard C. Honour           President             August 7, 2006
-------------------------
Richard C. Honour

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  or
otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not
be deemed  incorporated  by reference in any filing under the  Securities Act or
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

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 with the  electronic  version  of this  written  statement
required by section  906,  has been  provided to the Company will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


                                      E-5
##### 



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 Mediacom Communications
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), Rocco B. Commisso, Chief Executive Officer and Mark E. Stephan,
Chief Financial 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 results of operations of
the Company. November 9,2004
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanChief Financial Officer
Cory Mitchell WINKELMANN, Appellant, v. Kathy Ann MIRELES, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1753

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 5, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Donna WARD, an individual, and Glenn Johnson, an individual, Appellants, v. LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32


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


<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


                          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  Xpention  Genetics,  Inc.  (formerly
Bayview  Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended May 31,
2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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:  September 13, 2005


/s/ David Kittrell
---------------------------------------
David Kittrell, CEO and CFO
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 9, 2014

No. 04-14-00372-CR

Andres Ramon JUAREZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0936B

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In an “Open Plea to the Court,” appellant pled nolo contendere to aggravated robbery. The 

trial court’s judgment also indicates appellant’s plea was an “open plea to the court.” In accordance 

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s 

right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The certification states that the underlying case “is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right 

of appeal.” However, on May 15, 2014, the trial court granted appellant’s Request for Permission to 

Appeal His Conviction. In his May 21, 2014, pro se notice of appeal, appellant notes he was granted 

permission to appeal. 

On May 30, 2014, Mr. Ross A Rodriguez, appellant’s retained trial counsel, filed a Motion to 

Withdraw As Attorney, stating he has not been retained to represent appellant on appeal. The motion 

is GRANTED.

The reporter’s record is due no later than August 26, 2014. Appellant’s brief will be due 

thirty days after the reporter’s record is filed. If appellant desires representation on appeal, he is 

encouraged to retain new counsel at the earliest possible date.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court 

on this 9th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.72

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made by and between
Proxim Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Kevin J. Duffy
("Executive"). The Company and Executive are parties to an Employment Agreement
of December 5, 2002 (the "Agreement"), and they now wish to amend the Agreement
in certain respects. Accordingly, the Company and Executive now agree as set
forth below.

      1. The first sentence of Section 2a of the Agreement is deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following: "While employed hereunder, Executive
shall serve as the Company's Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer."

      2. Executive's "Base Salary", as set forth in Section 3 of the Agreement,
shall be increased to $300,000 per annum.

      3. Executive's "Target Bonus", as set forth in Section 4 of the Agreement,
shall not be less than 75% of his Base Salary.

Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of
the date(s) set forth below.

Dated:  May 25, 2004                   /s/ Kevin J. Duffy
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       KEVIN J. DUFFY

Dated:  May 25, 2004                   PROXIM CORPORATION

                                       By:/s/ Franco Plastina
                                       -----------------------------------

                                       Its:_______________________________
VINTAGE CLASSICS, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SCHECHER GROUP, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1159

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 09, 2018 Rehearing Denied August 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the  undersigned  officer of ReliaStar Life
Insurance  Company of New York (the  "Company")  hereby  certifies  that, to the
officer's knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                         By /s/ James R. Gelder
March 29, 2005                              ------------------------------------
--------------                                  James R. Gelder
    Date                                        Director and Chairman, President
                                                  and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Lissa A. Goldenstein, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report of
Argonaut Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Argonaut Technologies, Inc.

Date:  November 12, 2004

                                  By:  /s/ LISSA A. GOLDENSTEIN
                                     --------------------------------------
                                  Name:  Lissa A. Goldenstein
                                  Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
John RUIZ and Mary D. Ruiz, Appellants, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1687

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

October 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
STATE EX REL. Carl BAHAM v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1195

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

PER CURIAM:

*684Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

        As of the date hereof, I, Jonathan N. Zakin, Chairman of Proxim
Corporation, President and Chief Executive Officer of Proxim Corporation prior
to May 2, 2003 and currently the principal executive officer of Proxim
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Proxim Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Proxim Corporation.

Dated:  May 12, 2003         By: /s/ Jonathan N. Zakin
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 Jonathan N. Zakin
                                 Chairman
# •**f.ll..l1~~~** OP.dicated to yoursuccess

www.pulaskitech.edu August 5, 2014 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground fJoor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 SUBJECT: Request for extension of exemption. Exemption No: 7926E Docket Number FAA-2002-13291 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing in response ofthe notice that my exemption for FAAtesting will expire November 30, 2014. I request that an extension ofthe exemption be approved for my organization. The ability to test students upon the completion oftraining has greatly benefited their ability to succeed in their pursuit of FAA mechanics certification. In the past a student had to complete 12 months oftraining before being evaluated on the first 3 months ofthat training. Since the approval ofthis exemption the completion rate ofour curriculum has increased. The numberof students completing the entire maintenance training program has also increased. With the implementation ofthis exemption, students are more confident and self reliant as to their ability to succeed in the program. Our exemption has benefited this program immensely. I hope to have ourexemption extended another 2 years. Please contact me ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,

### a~**tft__,~** Aaron R.

# Hi~t~.~tar7"**~r~;c(__/** Pulaski Technical College- ·Aviation Technology Center PH: (501) 835-5420 FX: (501) 834-7859

Aviation Maintenance Technology Center 16oo West Maryland Avenue North Little Rock, AR 72120 Phone 501-835-5420 Fax 501·834·7859 -::-, ") _.J-L
#### Mildred MORRELL v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 4650.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

March 30, 1953.

Robert E. Holland, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Robert A. Sauer, Acting General Counsel, A. M. Edwards, Jr., Asst. General Counsel, Nathan Siegel, Solicitor, and Isa-dore A. Honig, Sp. Litigation Attorney, Office of Rent Stabilization, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Docketed and dismissed on motion of ap-pellee, for failure of appellant diligently to prosecute.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Kevin Frost, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Filtering Associates,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
         business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
         to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
         in which this report is being prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
         controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
         about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
         of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
         evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
         issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
         has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
         the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting;
         and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
         operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's
         ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
         and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
         employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
         internal control over financial reporting.


Date: March 31, 2004



/s/ Kevin Frost
-----------------------
Kevin Frost, Chief Executive Officer
Opinion filed March 21 , 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 175

- CR

____ _ ______ 

### DOMINIQUE GREEN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 27329A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant, Dominique Green

, of the third

- degree felony offense of injury to a child

. The trial

court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for six years

. We affirm

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and conclude s that this appeal is frivolous

and without merit . Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the brief

, a copy2 of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of the reporter’s record . Counsel advised

A ppellant of h er right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of h er right to file a petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 48.4 , 68

. Cou rt

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v.

State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

A ppellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief

. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit

. 1

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial

court

.

PER CURIAM

March 21 , 201 9 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2

Willson, J., not participating.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Ea stland, sitting by assignment.