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



CERTIFICATIONS

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Zurvita Holdings, Inc. (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended July 31, 2012 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





|Dated:November 13, 2012 | /s/ Jay Shafer                                                                
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | Jay Shafer                                                                    
|                        | Co-Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Premier Energy Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Anton
Prodanovic, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 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:
      April 30, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Dr. Anton
    ProdanovicDr. Anton
      Prodanovic
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CALVIN LAMONT MCFADYEN, a/k/a Nino, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-95-83) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Because the Sentencing Guidelines relating to revocationof supervised release have always been advisory, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. A, the sentence in this appeal is not impacted by the decision in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Calvin Lamont McFadyen appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a forty-two month sentence. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm the revocation of McFadyen’s supervised release and the sentence imposed. Based on McFadyen’s admission to a criminal association violation, his no contest plea to a criminal conduct violation, and the probation officer’s proffer of evidence, the district court found that McFadyen violated the conditions of his supervision and properly revoked his supervision. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2004). McFadyen challenges the length of the sentence, which exceeded the thirty-to-thirty-seven month range suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (1994). However, this range is not binding on the sentencingcourt. * United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir. 1994). Indeed, a greater sentence may be warranted where, as here, the original sentence was the result of a downward departure. See USSG § 7B1.4, comment. (n.4). Because McFadyen received a significant downward departure from his original sentence, the district court’s decision to impose a sentence above- 3 - the range suggested in § 7B1.4(a) was reasonable. Additionally, we note that the imprisonment and supervised release terms did not exceed the maximum sentence that could be imposed on revocation. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3); Johnson v. United States , 529 U.S. 694, 702 (2000); United States v. Maxwell , 285 F.3d 336, 341 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted),Robert G. Gargus, Chief Financial Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission(“SEC”) or its staff upon request.     This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.         /s/ Robert G. Gargus   **Robert G. Gargus,**   **Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer**      Dated: February 5, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No: 2:15 CR 16

)

BRANDON JUAN CRUZ )

O R D E R

Pursuant to the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (DE #16), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement (DE #12) pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(3), the

Magistrate Judge’s findings are now ADOPTED, defendant’s plea of guilty to the

offense charged in Count I of the Indictment (DE #1) is now hereby ACCEPTED, and

defendant is adjudged guilty of the offense as charged therein. A sentencing date will

be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 8, 2015

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 31.1

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

      I, Robert E. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive Officer of Terabeam, Inc.,
certify that:

      1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Terabeam,
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 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 auditors 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.



Date: November 14, 2005                     /s/ Robert E. Fitzgerald
                                            ------------------------
                                            Robert E. Fitzgerald
                                            Chief Executive Officer
Daniel H. JONES, petitioner, v. John W. McCLARTY, Judge, et al.

No. 13-5166.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 32.2





Annual
Certification Pursuant to
 Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





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), the undersigned officer of FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc. (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





The
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      April 14, 2010
            
            /s/  
      GARY McHENRY(Principal
      Accounting Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc. and will be retained by FX
Real Estate and Entertainment Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Gabino LOPEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6768.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7778
G. GRAY; PETER DAUGHARTY; ALBERT J. NEELEY, JR.; CHRIS JENKINS; CLARENCE BROWNING; KEVIN M. BALLANCE; LAWRENCE E. HAYMES; C. MACK LYNN; GINO L. REID; J. BARCASE; DERRICK L. HAYMES; T. LEHRER; MICHAEL WAYNE BRETZ; ALEXANDER X; HENRY FRANK HARLESS; LARRY DEAN; STUART ADKINS; GARY DEAN DELP; LINDA C ARSON LEWIS; NICHOLE CIOLKOSZ; HELEN FAIRCHILD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and
LLOYD GAITHER; B. HARRIS; BO HAY; G. WALDON MCKINNON; B. LIGHT; L. HARRISON; M. MELLY; JOHN R. LAFLAMME, JR., Plaintiffs, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Departmentof Corrections; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-868-R) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 29, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.23 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Gray, Peter Daugharty, Albert J. Neeley, Jr., Chris Jenkins, Clarence Browning, Kevin M. Ballance, Lawrence E. Haymes, C. Mack Lynn, Gino L. Reid, J. Barcase, Derrick L. Haymes, T. Lehrer, Michael Wayne Bretz, Alexander X, Henry Frank Harless, Larry Dean, Stuart Adkins, Gary Dean Delp, Linda Carson Lewis, Nichole Ciolkosz, Helen Fairchild, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's orders denying their motions for reconsideration of the order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Angelone , No. CA-96-868-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 19, 1996). We grant Appellant Gray's motion to expedite the appeal to the extent possible given the court's busy docket. We dispense with oral argument be cause thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED4
#### Ruben TORRES-SANTANA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71153.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 17, 2004.

Carlos Vellanoweth, Esq., John Wolfgang Gehart, Vellanoweth *&*Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., Efthimia S. Pilitsis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ruben Torres-Santana and Maria Torres, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying them motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitioners sought to reopen on the ground that there were new circumstances demonstrating exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying family members, as required for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, where the motion did not challenge the immigration judge’s pri- or determination that petitioners failed to satisfy the threshold requirement for cancellation of removal: ten-years continuous physical presence in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (continuous presence requirement); *Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) *548(reviewing BIA’s denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC. 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 ACR Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony R. Maresca, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge 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.



/s/ Anthony R. MarescaAnthony R. MarescaChief Financial OfficerOctober 15, 2004




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 ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACR Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         415,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,784,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                   705,396
<INVENTORY>                                 15,762,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,789,170
<PP&E>                                       5,688,824
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,061,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,182,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,501,760
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       103,716
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,082,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,182,587
<SALES>                                     20,596,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,596,782
<CGS>                                       16,471,861
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,471,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               121,372
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             310,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                190,728
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   180,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Rossi M. POTTS, petitioner, v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 13-425.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending February 29, 2008 of Sparking Events, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Carlo Giusto, Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   /s/ Carlo Giusto ---------------------------------- Carlo Giusto  President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Sole Director   Date: May 29, 2008
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellant,

v.

TIMEIKA DELOISE AQUAVIA 

LATTERY MCGILL and LESLY 

ST. CLOU,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-716

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Department of Revenue.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Department of Revenue raises two issues in this appeal of a 

Final Administrative Support Order determining the child support obligation of 

Appellee Lesly St. Clou (the father). In the first issue, the Department argues that 

the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by concluding that he lacked authority to 

enter a support order exceeding the amounts set forth in the Department’s 
2

Proposed Final Administrative Support Order based on new information developed 

at an evidentiary hearing that would increase the father’s child support obligation 

under the statutory child support guidelines. In the second issue, the Department 

argues that the Final Administrative Support Order is not supported by competent, 

substantial evidence. Consistent with our opinion in Department of Revenue v. 

Reyes, No. 1D15-707 (Fla. 1st DCA December 31, 2015), we resolve both issues 

by concluding that the ALJ was required to establish the father’s child support 

obligation based on the evidence presented at the hearing. By limiting the father’s 

child support obligation to the amounts contained in the proposed order, 

notwithstanding the evidence presented, the Final Administrative Support Order is 

contrary to Florida law and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 

Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. 

WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
   /s/ Robert G. GargusRobert G. Gargus,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  58