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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      I, Michael F. Emerson, Chief Executive Officer of visionGATEWAY, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
on my knowledge:

      (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


Dated: October 19, 2006


/s/ Michael F. Emerson
-------------------------------------
Michael F. Emerson
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

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
required by Section 906, has been provided to visionGATEWAY and will be retained
by visionGATEWAY and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
G.A., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2779

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 10, 2018.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11368.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 30, 1953.

McAllister, Circuit Judge, dissented.

*127C. P. J. Mooney and Eugene P. Boyd, Memphis, Tenn., on the brief, for appellant.

John Brown, Thomas C. Farnsworth and Edward N. Vaden, Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing having been considered by the Court;

And the Court being of the opinion that the evidence complained of by appellant concerning collateral transactions on the part of the appellant was relevant as bearing upon the question of fraudulent intent, and there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in permitting it to be considered by the jury under proper instructions by the Court; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mechanics’ Savings Bank & Trust Co., 6 Cir., 72 F. 413, 422; Hartzell v. United States, 8 Cir., 72 F.2d 569, 584; Banning v. United States, 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 330, 337-338;

That the nature and degree of control by the Court of the conduct of government counsel and witnesses during the course of the trial, are matters addressed to the discretion of the Trial Judge; Twachtman v. Connelly, 6 Cir., 106 F.2d 501, 509; that the alleged unresponsive answers of certain witnesses had no substantial adverse effect upon the fairness of the trial; Stoppelli v. United States, 9 Cir., 183 F.2d 391, 395; and, in view of the fact that such matters are transitory in nature and are not likely to reoccur in the same form, if at all, in the next trial, it is inadvisable for this Court to attempt to rule on such questions in advance;

And, having again considered the other matters urged upon us by appellants, and being of the opinion that it is sufficient for the purposes of the retrial to call to the attention of the Trial Judge the possibility of reversible error in communicating to the jury through the medium of a deputy marshal; Ray v. United States, 8 Cir., 114 F.2d 508, 512, 513, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 709, 61 S.Ct. 318, 85 L.Ed. 461; Dodge v. United States, 2 Cir., 258 F. 300, 7 L.R.A. 1510, certiorari denied, 250 U.S. 660, 40 S.Ct. 10, 63 L.Ed. 1194.

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing be denied.

McALLISTER, Circuit Judge, is of the opinion that the petition for rehearing should be granted for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion.
Exhibit 31.1

                     Rule 13A-14(a)/15D-14(a) Certification
                           Of Chief Executive Officer

I, Merton Corn, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-KSB/A of VSB Bancorp, 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)) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
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.[Omitted in accordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; and

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based
on such evaluation; and

d. 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 fourth fiscal quarter 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):
<PAGE>

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: November 8, 2005

                                              /s/ MERTON CORN
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Merton Corn, President and CEO
944 CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1273

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Joshua COLEMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Zackary Daniel HILLEGASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 11, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Taylor, Klingensmith and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Appeal From Berkeley County 

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Jane Roe, as parent and natural guardian of Judy Roe, 

James Roe, and Joyce Roe, Minor Children Under the 

Age of Eighteen, (18), Petitioners, 

v. 

Daniel Bibby Sr. and Michelle Bibby, Defendants, 

of Whom Michelle Bibby is the Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-002500 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Opinion No. 27652 

Heard November 5, 2015 – Filed August 10, 2016 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED 

Eric M. Poulin, of Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC, of 

Charleston, for Petitioners. 

Eugene P. Corrigan, III and J.W. Nelson Chandler, both 

of Corrigan & Chandler, LLC, of Charleston, for 

Respondent. 
PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in 

Roe v. Bibby, 410 S.C. 287, 763 S.E.2d 645 (Ct. App. 2014). We now dismiss the 

writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice 

Jean H. Toal, concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANC ISC O HER

R E R A HER NANDEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-72850 Age n c y No. A077-087-809 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** B e fore : B EA, WATFORD, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Fra nc isc o He rre ra He rnande z , a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision finding him re m ova b le an d pre te rm itting his a pplic a tion for c a

n c e l lation of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED JUN 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wde novo que stions of la w , Mie le w c

zy k v . Holde r , 575 F.3d 992, 994 (9th C i r. 2009), a

nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA c orre c t ly

de te rm ine d tha

t He rre ra He rnan de z ’ s c onvic t ion unde r C a lifornia He a lth a nd Sa fe ty C ode § 11360(a ) c o nstitute s a n offe nse in viola

tion of a la w re l a ting to a c o ntrolle d substa nc e unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II) tha t re nde rs him

re m ova ble and sta

tutorily ine l igible for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(C ); Mie le w c zy k, 575 F.3d a

t 994-98 & n. 1 (finding the pla in la ngua ge of § 11352(a), a

sta t ute “ la rge ly ide ntic a l” to § 11360(a

), re lat e s to a c ontrolle d substa

nc e , a nd “ the distinc tion be twe e n a ge ne ric solic ita

tion sta tute or one spe c i fic a lly a i m e d at c ontrolle d substa nc e s is c ritic a l whe n our inquiry is whe the r the sta

tute of c onvic tion is a

sta te la wre lating to c ontrolle d substa n c e s” ). W e do not re a c h He rre ra

He rnan de z ’ s c onte ntions tha t his first c onvic tion wa s va c a t e d

and the re fore doe s not m ake him re m ova ble , a nd tha t his § 11360(a

) c onvic tion is not a

n a ggravate d fe lony , be c a use the B IA did not re ly

upon those grounds in finding him re m ova b le or ine l igible for re lie f. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [O] ur re vie w is limi te d to the a c tua l grounds re lie d

upon by the B IA.” (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d)).

1 4 - 7 2 8 5 0 2W e do not a ddre ss He rre ra He rnan de z ’ s due proc e ss c onte n t ion. Se e Martine z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ Issue s ra ise d in a brie f that a

re not supporte d by

argum e n t a

re de e m e d a

b andone d.” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 4 - 7 2 8 5 0 3
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(87)
              - science_faqs(12)
              - science_science(562)
              - products_data(327)
              - products_maps(82)
              - products_publications(3046)
              - products_software(11)
              - products_web_tools(36)
              - multimedia_audio(224)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(213)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(11)
              - multimedia_before_after(30)
              - multimedia_image(1326)
              - multimedia_image-141769(111)
              - multimedia_image-141770(16)
              - multimedia_image-141771(734)
              - multimedia_image-141772(18)
              - multimedia_image-141774(7)
              - multimedia_image-141775(141)
              - multimedia_image-141776(81)
              - multimedia_image-141783(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(215)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(21)
              - multimedia_video(600)
              - multimedia_video-149194(179)
              - multimedia_video-149195(233)
              - multimedia_video-149196(42)
              - multimedia_video-149197(65)
              - multimedia_video-149198(46)
              - multimedia_video-149225(4)
              - multimedia_webcam(1)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(1)
              - documents_file(1062)
              - documents_file-149203(2)
              - documents_file-149204(8)
              - documents_file-149206(2)
              - documents_file-149208(2)
              - documents_file-149209(1)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - (-)documents_file-149213(4)
              - documents_file-149214(19)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149216(1)
              - documents_file-149217(2)
              - documents_file-149218(4)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - documents_file-149220(17)
              - documents_file-149222(990)
              - documents_file-149224(6)
              - news_news-149245(47)
              - news_news-149246(9)
              - news_news-149247(1)
              - news_news-149248(40)
              - news_news-149249(19)
              - news_news-149250(44)
              - news_newsletters(26)
              - news_other_news(286)
              - connect_locations(2)
              - connect_social_media(8)
              - connect_staff_profiles(159)
              - other_basic-37(19)
              - other_basic-42(245)
              - other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

              - south dakota(1)

## By Year

Policy and Directives        July 18, 2014        National Plan for Civil Earth Observations

Policy and Directives        May 24, 2021        INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION

Policy and Directives        May 24, 2021        NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7

Policy and Directives        October 24, 2018        National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive Collection Policy
James A. WESLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1264

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Leon J. NICELY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4044

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2018

Leon J. Nicely, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This court issued an order on May 2, 2018, directing Appellant to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him in light of his having instituted numerous repetitive, meritless proceedings in this court. *See**State v. Spencer* , 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999). We have reviewed Appellant's response and determined it does not provide a legal basis to justify withholding imposition of sanctions.

Appellant is hereby prohibited from filing any pro se filings in this court challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in Duval County case number 16-1996-CF-8172. The Clerk of this court is directed to not accept any filings in this case unless they are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. Additionally, we find this appeal is a frivolous proceeding brought before this court by a state prisoner. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). We direct the clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution or facility within the Florida Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures pursuant to department rules.

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



E-SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of e-Smart Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2005 (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 2003, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with 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 e-Smart Technologies, Inc.



Date: August 15, 2005



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Mary A. Grace          
|Chief Executive Officer    
|and Chief Financial Officer
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 Delta Mutual, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter F. Russo,
President and 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                       /s/ Peter Russo
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Peter F. Russo
                                       President and
                                       Chief Executive Officer

May 20, 2005
Exhibit 31.1

     CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Careaga, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nannaco, Inc.
("Registrant");

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and the audit
committee of registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

April 14, 2005

/s/ Steve Careaga
-----------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Executive Officer
CONFIDENTIAL

{ }
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with
the amended quarterly Report of Hitor Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the Company), on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ken Martin,
CEO and CAO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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.    [exhibit321231062nd002002.gif] _______________________________ Ken Martin, CEO, CAO Dated:  October 1, 2009
David CARPENTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 3, 2018

David Carpenter, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.