alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Alberto DiBella, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: November 12, 2007


/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge David Piester.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1412

___________

United States of America *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for District

v. * of Nebraska

*

Lynn J. Replogle *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2002

 Filed: August 30, 2002 

___________

Before RILEY, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Lynn J. Replogle, having entered a conditional guilty plea and having received

sentence, now exercises his reserved right to appeal the district court's1

 denial of a

motion to suppress physical evidence. Mr. Replogle also appeals the district court's
2

denial of his motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate his conditional guilty

plea. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying

factual determinations for clear error, giving "due weight" to the inferences of the

district court and law enforcement officials. United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722,

725-26 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Law enforcement officials accompanied by Mr. Replogle's Nebraska Probation

Officer seized evidence during an unconsented and warrantless search of a house

under Mr. Replogle's possession and control. The district court correctly determined

that no search warrant was required because the search was conducted pursuant to

Mr. Replogle's Nebraska Order of Probation. The terms of Mr. Replogle's probation

required him to grant probation officers and accompanying law enforcement officials

consent to search property under his ownership, possession, or control. Mr. Replogle

argues that, upon his refusal to consent to the search in this case, officials could have

revoked his probation, but could not rightfully carry out the search. The district court

rejected this argument, finding that warrantless search requirements in probation

orders are generally considered reasonable, United States v. Vincent, 167 F.3d 428,

431 (8th Cir. 1999), and that the requirement to grant consent did not actually impose

on the probation officer a duty to obtain consent. The district court also correctly

determined that the search was conducted for a probationary purpose and not merely

for investigative purposes under the pretense of furthering the goals of probation.

Finding no clear error in the factual determinations of the district court, and

concurring in the district court's legal analysis based on those facts, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
EXHIBIT 31.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary H. Schlatter certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of OraLabs Holding
Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 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 function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


Dated December 19, 2005                /s/ Gary H. Schlatter
                                     -------------------------
                                            President
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\
                 13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Alberto DiBella, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: November 10, 2006


/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
---

---

Exhibit 8.1

# List of Subsidiaries

|Company                                     | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Ceragon Networks (Aus) Pty Ltd              | Australia                    
|Ceragon Networks do Brasil Limitada         | Brazil                       
|Ceragon Networks (UK) Limited               | England                      
|Ceragon Networks SARL                       | France                       
|Ceragon Networks (HK) Limited               | Hong Kong                    
|Ceragon Networks (India) Private Limited    | India                        
|Ceragon Networks, S.A. de C.V.              | Mexico                       
|Ceragon Networks, Inc.                      | New Jersey                   
|Ceragon Networks (Philippines), Inc.        | Philippines                  
|Ceragon Networks APAC (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. | Singapore                    



---

---
Exhibit 31.01

I,
Douglas M. Pihl, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MathStar, 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(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 registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|                     |  |    |  |                                                                                          
|-------------------- |  | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|Date: March 31, 2009 |  | By |  | /s/ DOUGLAS M. PIHL Douglas M. Pihl
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                             132,413
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   135,224
<PP&E>                                              74,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (1,578)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     209,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               21,378
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               231
<OTHER-SE>                                         148,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       209,926
<SALES>                                              1,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,726
<CGS>                                                1,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6,433
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (7)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (4,247)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       4,247
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        4,247
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.18)
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. GT01-15-000]

Take notice that on April 12, 2001, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas Eastern) and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern LP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1 and First Revised Volume No. 2, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A and B to the filing, to reflect a corporate name change to become effective April 16, 2001.

Texas Eastern and Texas Eastern LP state that copies of its transmittal letter and appendices have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10230 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134431 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Marilyn Kelly 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, v SC: 134431 Justices COA: 266078 

Berrien CC: 2005-402405-FH 

THOMAS RAY SPANGLER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I would grant leave to appeal in this case to consider when offense variable (OV) 

19 is properly scored. Ten points are scored for OV 19 where the defendant has 

“interfered with or attempted to interfere with the administration of justice.” MCL 

777.49(c). In this case, defendant hid himself and items used in methamphetamine 

production in a closet when the police arrived at the house to investigate a crime 

committed by another person. For doing so, he was scored ten points under OV 19. 

Given that it would be extraordinary for a criminal perpetrator not to attempt to hide 

evidence of his or her crime or to make such crime less detectable, it would seem that OV 

19 would almost always be scored under the trial court’s interpretation. Perhaps this is 

consistent with OV 19, but, if that was the Legislature’s intention, it would seem that it 

would have simply increased the base level for theft offenses and other criminal offenses 

involving contraband. Because the guidelines are more than hortatory, and must be 

construed in the same fashion as any other binding law of this state, I would grant leave 

to enable a closer review of the Legislature’s intentions. See People v Barbee, 470 Mich 

283 (2004). 

p1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 27, 2007 

Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0605

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CLAY BRADY RIPPLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 28, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2021

12/21/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0605
UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS

Misc. No. 5-01

In Re: RULE 24 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY, HOLDAWAY,

IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a) and consistent with 28 U.S.C.

§ 2071(b), the Court has determined the need to change the procedures for granting waivers of the

filing fee. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the attached proposed changes to Rule 24 and Form 4 are hereby published.

Public comment on these changes is invited. Such comment must be submitted to the Clerk of this

Court at 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004-2950, by September 28, 2001.

DATED: August 24, 2001 BY THE COURT:

KENNETH B. KRAMER

Chief Judge

Attachments
ATTACHMENT TO MISCELLANEOUS ORDER NO. 5-01

(added language underlined; deleted language struck out)

RULE 24. WAIVER OF FILING FEE

An appellant who is unable, because of financial hardship, to pay Payment of the filing

fee required by Rule 3(e) or Rule 21(a) may request a waiver of the payment of the fee by

submitting a motion to waive the filing fee, will be waived, due to financial hardship, in any

case where the appellant (or petitioner) submits a declaration of financial hardship and that

declaration is accepted for filing. That declaration will be subject to the penalty of perjury

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and must be on the form prescribed at Form 4 in the Appendix

of Forms.

If the Court grants the motion, the payment of the filing fee will be waived. If the motion

is denied by the Court, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to the appellant notice of the Court's

order denying the motion; the fee must be paid declaration is found to lack a signature or to

be otherwise noncompliant, it will be rejected for filing, and the Clerk will promptly return

it to the appellant (or petitioner); within 14 days from the date of the Court's orderafter the

return mailing of such a noncompliant declaration, either the fee must be paid or a new

declaration that addresses the deficiencies in the noncompliant declaration must be

submitted.

[These changes would simplify the process for filing declarations of financial hardship.]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

______________________________, Appellant/Petitioner,

 v.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee/Respondent.

I am the appellant/petitioner. I declare, by my signature below, that payment of the fifty dollar

($50.00) filing fee required by Rule 3(e) or Rule 21(a) of the Court's Rules of Practice and

Procedure would be a financial hardship for me.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct (28 U.S.C. § 1746).

__________________________ ______________________________________

Date Signature of Appellant/Petitioner

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Accepted for filing:

__________________________ ______________________________________

Date Deputy Clerk

Form 4

(Rev 10/01)