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



Section 1350
Certification



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Agritek Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Justin Braune, Chief Executive
Officer, and Heather Bush, 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 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:  September 22, 2015 | /s/ Justin Braune                                                   
|------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                          | Justin Braune, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
|                          |                                                                     
|                          |                                                                     
|Date:  September 22, 2015 | /s/ Heather Bush                                                    
|                          | Heather Bush, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) 



This certification
accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
                                                                    ------------


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We have issued our report dated February 14, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of The A
Consulting Team, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration Statements of The A Consulting Team, Inc. on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-88330, 333-42744, and 333-51084) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-42145).


                                             GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York
March 25, 2003
Joshua J. MURPHY, DOC #H25977, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-731

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 31, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Keith W. Upson, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Murphy appeals his judgment and sentence for one count of failure to report in person to a driver's license office within forty-eight hours after a change in his transient residence. We affirm in all respects save one.

Pending resolution of this appeal, Mr. Murphy filed a motion to correct sentencing errors pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B). In his motion, Mr. Murphy disputed the inclusion of fourteen points scored on his criminal punishment code scoresheet for a prior conviction that, he claimed, did not exist. The trial court denied Mr. Murphy's motion without a hearing. This was error.

"When the defense challenges prior convictions and the accuracy of the scoresheet, the [S]tate has the burden of producing competent evidence of the disputed conviction." *DeGeso v. State*, 771 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting *Watson v. State*, 591 So. 2d 951, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ). "A claim that a defendant's scoresheet erroneously included as scored prior convictions crimes for which he or she had never been convicted requires an evidentiary hearing." *Purifoy v. State*, 10 So. 3d 197, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing *Walker v. State*, 940 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ); *see also* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (directing trial courts to follow the procedure under rule 3.800(b)(1)(B), which provides that an evidentiary hearing should be held if necessary). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to convene an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Murphy's claim and for the court to then resentence Mr. Murphy if necessary. *See**Lyons v. State*, 823 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

It also appears that the trial court erroneously combined a $ 151 fine authorized under section 938.01, Florida Statutes (2017), with $ 550 in felony court costs, for a total of $ 701 which the trial court erroneously labeled as a single fine for crimes against a minor. On remand, the trial court shall enter a corrected judgment for fines and costs showing that the $ 151 fine and $ 550 in costs are separate.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Rosa VALDES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1456

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In connection with the Quarterly Report (the "report") of National Health
Partners, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, David M. Daniels,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alex Soufflas, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, do each hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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.


                                        /s/ David M. Daniels
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        David M. Daniels
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Alex Soufflas
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Alex Soufflas
                                        Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 15, 2006
EX PARTE Charles Ted HERRING

CR-17-0201

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Bullock Cir. Ct.
Afeez ALI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-46

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
---

Exhibit 32.a

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Dynamic Gold Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, each of Tim Coupland, the Chief Executive Officer, and Rob Hall, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, 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 the best of the undersigned’s 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 Company. / s / Tim CouplandTim Coupland, Principal Executive Officer 
    November 7, 2011 / s / Rob HallRob Hall, Principal Financial Officer 
    November 7, 2011


---
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Two Rivers Water Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John McKowen Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-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; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated:  August 16, 2010
By: /s/ John McKowenChief Executive Officer & Chairman of the Board
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP, Crosstex Lig, LLC and Crosstex Processing Services, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

NO. 2019-CC-053C

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.

HUGHES, J., would grant reconsideration.

CRICHTON, J., would grant reconsideration.

GENOVESE, J., would grant reconsideration.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with Arlington Tankers Ltd.’s (the “Company”) quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thethree months ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Arthur L. Regan, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer,and Edward Terino, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to our knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date:  August 9, 2007 /s/ ARTHUR L. REGAN   Name:  Arthur L. Regan   Title:  President and Co-Chief Executive Officer         Date:  August 9, 2007           /s/ EDWARD TERINO   Name:  Edward Terino  Title:  Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief   Financial Officer  
48
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. ETTER, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00184 WHA

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff John C. Etter filed an administrative motion to file under seal in connection with

his response to defendant Allstate’s opposition to distribution of class notice Exhibits B, C, and

D pursuant to defendant Louis Odiase’s confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 96). Odiase,

however, has failed to submit his supporting declaration required by Local Rule 79-5(e). 

Accordingly, the administrative motion is DENIED. Etter shall file unredacted versions of

Exhibits B, C, and D by OCTOBER 19 AT NOON. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2018. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Case Nos. 17-CV-00220-LHK & 17-MD-02773-LHK

ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK

ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 17-MD-02773-LHK

The Court hereby CONTINUES the April 24, 2018 further case management conference to 

May 4, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall file their joint case management statement by April 

30, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

Case Nos. 17-CV-00220-LHK & 17-MD-02773-LHK

ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dated: April 23, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

Certification 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)

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), I, S.P. Johnson IV, President and Chief Executive Officer of Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., a Texas corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |                     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2011 |  | /s/ S.P. Johnson IV
|                      |  | Name:               |  | S.P. Johnson IV                      
|                      |  |                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Carrizo
Oil & Gas, Inc. and will be retained by Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# L_2017124EN.01003501.xml

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 124/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 124/35

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/835

of 12 May 2017

correcting the Slovenian and Swedish language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 laying down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 and Regulations (EC) No 1265/2007, (EC) No 1794/2006, (EC) No 730/2006, (EC) No 1033/2006 and (EU) No 255/2010

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 4(a) and (b) thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (2) (the EASA Basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 8 and 8b and Annex Vb thereto,

Whereas:

| (1) | There are errors in the Slovenian and Swedish language versions of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 (3). The other languages are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

There are errors in the Slovenian and Swedish language versions of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 (3). The other languages are not affected.

| (2) | Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 should therefore be corrected accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Concerns only the Slovenian language version.

Article 2

Concerns only the Swedish language version.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 May 2017.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 20.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012 laying down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 and Regulations (EC) No 1265/2007, (EC) No 1794/2006, (EC) No 730/2006, (EC) No 1033/2006 and (EU) No 255/2010 (OJ L 281, 13.10.2012, p. 1).

3

---
Henry Lee WILLIAMS, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0756

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
MCCLAIN SONICS, INC. v. Kasondra KNIGHT-ELMORE

2160861

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 16, 2018

Affirmed.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-30677) and Form S-3 (File No.
333-33527) of our report dated February 12, 1999 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1998, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 29, 1999
Barbara Ann ROBERTS v. STATE

CR-16-0404

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD DE’VONN WEBB,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.E. DUCART, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00330-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 15

On January 23, 2017, plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against officials and 

staff at Pelican Bay State Prison. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to 

amend. On September 29, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a 

federal claim. Dismissal was without prejudice to re-filing in state court based on an alleged 

violation of state law. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Because the motion was filed after judgment was entered, it is construed as a request for 

relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Civil L.R. 7-9(a) (allowing 

motions for reconsideration only with respect to pre-judgment interlocutory orders). Rule 60(b) 

provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence 

could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the 

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such a 

motion must be made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1)-(3), no later than 

one year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s motion fails to make the showing required under Rule 60(b) or otherwise to 

show good cause for reconsideration. Plaintiff argues that he has been unable to get relief in state 

court. This argument is not grounds for reconsidering the dismissal of this action for failure to 

state a federal claim.1 Plaintiff is advised that motions for reconsideration should not be 

frequently made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking 

some perceived error of the court. School Dist. 1J., 5 F.3d at 1263. Accordingly, the request for 

relief from judgment is DENIED.

No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1 To the extent plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), the motion must also be denied as 

untimely because plaintiff filed his motion more than one year after entry of judgment. 

3/11/2019
Wendi WERTHER, Appellant, v. UNITED TEACHERS OF DADE, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-869

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Antonio Devoe JONES v. STATE

CR-13-1552

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.