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

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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cortelco Systems Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Registrant") for the year ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Juan C. Ramos, Chief Executive Officer, and Francisco Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.



Date: April 9, 2009

/s/    Juan C. RamosJuan C. Ramos
Chief Executive Officer



/s/    Francisco SanchezFrancisco Sanchez
Chief Financial Officer



---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         101,472
<SECURITIES>                                   246,269
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,729
<INVENTORY>                                     20,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               479,359
<PP&E>                                         222,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 684,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,368
<BONDS>                                         66,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           738
<OTHER-SE>                                     535,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   684,206
<SALES>                                         94,831
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,907
<CGS>                                           11,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
[No. 20948-9-II.

Division Two.

August 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Chad Ames Parker, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 96-1-00237-9, James E.F.X. Warme, J., entered July 9, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Seinfeld, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             739
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,615
<PP&E>                                           5,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,602
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,535
<SALES>                                         13,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,852
<CGS>                                            5,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    116
<INCOME-TAX>                                       143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (27)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (27)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William M. Burg, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 377]

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), imposed August 3, 2010, which, upon his conviction of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, imposed a period of postrelease supervision of five years in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed by the same court on April 4, 2002.

*1015Ordered that the resentence is reversed, on the law, and the period of postrelease supervision is vacated.

The defendant was arrested in 2000 and subsequently pleaded guilty to sodomy in the first degree. In 2002, the defendant was sentenced by the County Court to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years. No period of postrelease supervision was imposed. It is undisputed that the defendant, having reached the maximum expiration date of his sentence, was released from prison on July 22, 2010.

On August 3, 2010, the County Court resentenced the defendant by adding to his original sentence a five-year period of post-release supervision. This was error, as the addition of a period of postrelease supervision after the maximum expiration date of the defendant’s sentence violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]; *People v Williams,*14 NY3d 198 [2010], *cert denied*562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]).

Accordingly, the resentence must be reversed and the period of postrelease supervision vacated. Mastro, A.EJ, Rivera, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of

Chief Financial Officer

of Wyndham International, Inc.



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of Wyndham International, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, Elizabeth Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |       |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | ----- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 9, 2004. |  |       |  |                        
|                         |  |       |  | /s/ Elizabeth Schroeder
|                         |  | Name: |  | Elizabeth Schroeder    



Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 9th day of November 2004.



|       |  |                
|------ |  | ---------------
|       |  | /s/ Vita Branch
|Name:  |  | Vita Branch    
|Title: |  | Notary Public  



My commission expires: 12-6-04



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 the Issuer and will be retained by
the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
HARPER
& ASSOCIATES, INC.





CONSULTANTS
AT OIL AND GAS TECHNOLOGY




6815
MANHATTAN BLVD


SUITE
201


FORT
WORTH, TEXAS 76120







G.
      MICHAEL HARPER
            817-457-9555PRESIDENT
            FAX
      817-457-9569www.harper-associates.com
            m@harper-associates.com










April 12,
2010







To Whom
It May Concern




As an
independent engineering consultant, I hereby consent to the use of my report
entitled "Estimate of Future Reserves and Revenues for British Columbia
Securities Commission NI 51-101 Report located in Garvin County, Oklahoma as of
December 31, 2009 dated March 30, 2010 and data extracted there from (and all
references to my Firm) included in or made a part of this Form 10-K Annual
Report to be filed on or about March 30, 2010.




Name: G.
Michael Harper




Title:  
 P.E., Consulting Engineer License Number 34481.






Signed:
/s/ G. Michael
Harper


Fort  Worth,
Texas






G.
Michael Harper


President
[ J

- 40

- 2018 ] [MO: Saylor, C.J. ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

PETITION OF: DIOCESE OF HARRISBURG AND DIOCESE OF GREENSBURG :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 45 WM 2017

Appeal from the Order of the Supervising Judge of the Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury entered on 6/15/17 at Allegheny County No. CP

- 02

- MD

- 0000571

- 2016

ARGUED: May 15, 2018

CONCURRING O PINION

JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: AUGUST 21, 2018

I join the erudite Majority Opinion. I write only to voice my concern with one aspect

of its expression. Atypically, the M ajority twice invokes this Court’s “supervisory authority”

to mandate substantive modifications to the entry of appearance form under scrutiny. We

do not often invoke our superintendence of the judiciary as justification for a sua sponte

form change, a nd I have no recollection of the Court ever employing this precept to alter

a form (or rule) within an opinion. Rather, our normal protocol is to refer the underlying

issue to the appropriate committee and permit it to consider adjustments t hrough its

customary process. Notably, in this regard, we presently have an ad hoc committee

reviewing all aspects of Pennsylvania’s grand jury practice.

Be this as it may, I can abide by the M ajority’s invocation of our supervisory

authority and employm ent thereof in an opinion to alter the subject entry of appearance

form i n two substantive aspects so long as it is understood that the use of this[ J

- 40

- 2018 ] [MO: Saylor, C.J. ]

- 2

methodology does not alter the inherent ability of our various committees, including the

ad hoc grand jury study group, to modify the form as statutory changes , caselaw

, or other

superseding factors would require. While the Majority does not say this, it does not

suggest anything to the contrary.

Accordingly, I write to clarify that I view the Majority Opini on ’s modification of the

entry of appearance form to resolve the case before us as in no way precluding or, indeed,

discouraging

, necessary variations now or in the future as recommended by any

appropriate C ourt committee, including the ad hoc committee studying grand jury

practice. This understanding would be as of course if the Court had made these

adjustments upon a committee’s recommendation. T he Majority’s invocation of our

supervisory powers and employment of an opinion to make these alter ation s s hould not

alter this typical process for rule and form variations

. Chief Justice Saylor and Justices Todd, Dougherty and Mundy join this concurring

opinion

.
#### POUND, Respondent, v. CONVERSE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Donald A. Pound against Harry L. Converse.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6832

DAVID DWIGHT SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director of S.C.D.C.; COLIE

RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry

Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-98-2565-13AK-5)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 7, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Dwight Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Philip Utecht,

HAYNSWORTH, MARION, MCKAY & GUERARD, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Dwight Smith appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Smith v. Moore, No. CA-98-2565-13AK-5 (D.S.C.

May 28, 1999). We deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel.

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
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.17


IMPCO                                                 Detroit Headquarters
Letterhead                                            35715 Sterling Drive
                                                      Sterling Heights, MI 48312
                                                      Tel:  (810) 819-0800
                                                      Fax:  (810) 979-8910
                                                      www.impcotechnologies.com


                   AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE BETWEEN BRADEN COURT
                     ASSOCIATES AND IMPCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

As of October 18, 2000, in all places where IMPCO Technologies, Inc. or IMPCO is
mentioned substitute Quantum Technologies, Inc.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment by their
officers thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first written above.


IMPCO Technologies, Inc.                           Braden Court Associates

By: /s/ Don Dominic                                BY: /s/ Norm Powell
    ------------------------                           -----------------
    Don Dominic

TITLE: VP & Secretary                              TITLE: Illegible
                                                          --------------


Quantum Technologies, Inc.

BY: /s/ Syed Hussain
    ------------------------


TITLE: President
       ---------------------
#### Gulf Yellow Pine Co. *v.*Urquhart.

*Trover and Trespass Quare Clausam.*

Decided July 2, 1907.

44 South. 555.)

*Action; Joinder; Trover and Trespass.*— Section 3293, Code 1896, does not authorize the joinder in a complaint of a count in trover for the conversion of certain trees and a count in trespass quare clausam fregit for damages to land by cutting the trees.

Appeal from Geneva Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

Action by Nancy Urquhart against the Gulf Yellow Pine Company. The first count is trover for conversion of 146 pine trees, the second count for damages to certain land by cutting certain trees, and count 3 is also for entry and cutting. Demurrers were interposed, setting up a misjoinder; but these demurrers were overruled. Issue was joined on the general issue and a special plea not necessary to be here set out, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $50; and the defendant appeals.

Reversed and demanded.

W. O. MulivEY, for appellant.

There was a misjoinder of causes of action in the complaint, not author*453ized by section 3293, Code *1896.*— Higclon *v. Kennamer,*120 Ala. 193. Charges 3 and 4 should have been given.— *Southern Bell T. & T. Go. v. Franklin,*109 Ala. 231.

R. P. Coleman, and Espey & Farmer, for appellee.— No brief came to the Reporter.

ANDERSON, J.

While section 3293 of the Code of 1896 authorizes the joinder of trespass and trover, it is only permissible when they relate to the same subject-matter.” In the case at bar one count is in trover for the conversion of certain logs, and the other is trespass quare clasum fregit, and not trespass de bonis asportatis. It is difficult to conceive ail instance when trover and trespass quare clasum fregit can relate to the same subject-matter. The former is for the conversion of personal property, and the latter is for the unlawful or unauthorized entry on land, or for a violent and forcible injury to real property; the measure of damage being the diminution in the value of the realty. On the other hand, there are many instances when trover and trespass de bonis asportatis would relate to the same subject-matter, and would fall under the influence of the statute authorizing a joinder, but which does not authorize a joinder of trover and trespass quare classum fregit, for the reason that they are so dissimilar that they cannot relate to the same subject-matter. It is true there is an averment that the “wrongs complained of in each count relate to the same subject-matter”; but this is a mere conclusion, and the counts upon their face do not relate to the same subject-matter. One relates to an injury to realty alone, and one to a conversion of personal property. The trial court erred in not sustaining the demur*454rer to the amended complaint, and the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, J.J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2395 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2395

     To suspend temporarily the duty on Propamocarb HCL (Previcur).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2005

  Mr. Costa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on Propamocarb HCL (Previcur).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROPAMOCARB HCL (PREVICUR).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.09.02      Mixtures of propyl  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         3-                                                                 31/2008
                         (dimethylamino)pr
                         opylcarbamate
                         monohydrochloride
                         (Propamocarb
                         hydrochloride)
                         (CAS No. 25606-41-
                         1) and
                         application
                         adjuvants
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3808.20.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1







HARPER & ASSOCIATES, INC.





6815 MANHATTAN BLVD., STE 201


FORT WORTH, TX 76120


817-457-9555


F 817-457-9569








March 23, 2011











To Whom It May Concern





As an independent engineering consultant, I hereby consent to the use of my report entitled “SEC Reserve Evaluation” located in Garvin County, Oklahoma as of December 31, 2010” dated February 15, 2011 and data extracted there from (an all references to my Firm) included in or made a part of this Form 10-K Annual report to be filed on or about March 30, 2011.








Name:    G. Michael Harper


Title:      P.E., Consulting Engineering License Number 34481.








Signed: /s/ G. Michael Harper


Fort Worth, Texas








G. Michael Harper


President
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Dakota Growers PastaCompany, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the annual period ended July 31, 2009 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operation of the Company.

 

Date:  October 29, 2009

 
|   | /s/  Edward O. Irion            |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |                            |
|   | Edward  O. Irion                |
|   | * Chief Financial Officer* |

 

1

----
##### 



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
  (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 Corporation.
 Date: December 28, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bahman AtefiName:
    
    Bahman AtefiTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer