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**
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Infinium Labs, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy M.
Roberts, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 ****Date: April 15,
2005
    
    /s/ Timothy M.
    RobertsTimothy M. RobertsChief
      Executive Officer and CFO
Exhibit 32.1
  CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shaun A. Burke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
  /s/  Shaun A. BurkeShaun A. BurkeChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)May 12, 2010
 
 *  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Jesse S. Joseph S. Appellant; Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, Respondent.

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Gage, J.), dated December 7, 1987, which, after a fact-finding hearing, sustained allegations that he sexually abused his son, and (2) from a dispositional order of the same court, dated September 6, 1988, which, *inter alia,*limited contact with his son to biweekly supervised visits for five years or pending a further order of the court, and directed that visitation be supervised by the respondent for 18 months.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petition in this child abuse case alleged that the appellant father sexually abused his infant son during the course of unsupervised weekend visits at his home during the summer of 1986.

A review of the record establishes that the petitioner presented a prima facie showing that the father had sexually abused the child, including the child’s out-of-court statements to a social worker and to a "validator” respecting the nature of the sexual acts performed, which statements were sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence *(see, Matter of Nicole V, 71*NY2d 112; *Matter of Kimberly K,*123 AD2d 865).

Once a prima facie case has been established by the petitioner, the burden shifts to the alleged abuser to offer a satisfactory explanation to rebut the evidence *(see, Matter of Jacinta J.,*140 AD2d 990, 991). Since the father failed to come forward with satisfactory evidence to rebut the petitioner’s case, the petitioner satisfied the requirement of Family Court Act § 1046 (b) that abuse be established by a preponderance of the evidence *(see, Matter of Jacinta J., supra,*at 990).

We see no reason to disturb the Family Court’s dispositional order which prohibited the father from having unsupervised contact with the son for a period of five years or until the issuance of a further court order *(see, Matter of Erin G.,*139 AD2d 737, 738). We further find that the Family Court’s order *582directing monitored supervised biweekly visitation under the auspices of a mental health professional was appropriate.

We have reviewed the father’s further contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ann Gandy, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court did not err in admitting the tape and a transcript of a 911 call placed by the victim Cynthia Little during the incident. After the tape was played and the transcript was submitted to the jury, the court cautioned the jury that the transcript was merely an aid, that they were not bound to accept it, and that they must decide what was said on the tape. This was in all respects proper (see, *People v Kuss,*81 AD2d 427, 430). The determination of whether to admit a tape recording is left to the discretion of the Trial Judge *(see, People v Lubow,*29 NY2d 58, 68; *People v Warner,*126 AD2d 788, *lv denied*69 NY2d 887). We find no abuse of discretion in this case.

' The court erred in permitting the People to cross-examine defendant’s character witnesses concerning whether their opinions of defendant’s reputation would change if they knew that defendant had committed the crimes at issue. This type of questioning is improper since it assumes the fact of defendant’s guilt and tends to usurp the jury’s function to determine defendant’s guilt or innocence *(see, People v Pryor,*70 AD2d 805, 806; *People v Lopez,*67 AD2d 624, *cert denied*444 US 827). The People concede the impropriety of such questioning, but argue that the error was harmless. We agree. In view of the jury’s verdict acquitting defendant of one homicide charge with regard to Edward Gandy and also acquitting her of intentionally killing Cynthia Little, it is apparent that the jury credited defendant’s testimony. Defendant has demonstrated no prejudice resulting from the improper cross-examination by the prosecutor.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — manslaughter, first degree, and another charge.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-05800-KMK-LMS Document 9-2 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05800-KMK-LMS Document 9-2 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05800-KMK-LMS Document 9-2 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05800-KMK-LMS Document 9-2 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 4 of 4
#### Mona A. Gerringer, Respondent-Appellant, v Irwin Gerringer, Appellant-Respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were previously divorced, the defendant husband appeals from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated February 26, 1988, as, without a hearing, granted that branch of the plaintiff wife’s motion which was for leave to enter a judgment for arrears, *inter alia,*of maintenance and denied his cross motion to modify the judgment of divorce by terminating his obligation to pay maintenance, and (2) an order of the same court, entered June 17, 1988, as upon renewal and reargument of the plaintiff wife’s motion and his cross motion, adhered to its original determination. The plaintiff wife cross-appeals from so much of the order dated February 26, 1988 as denied that branch of her motion which was for attorneys’ fees.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

*653Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 26, 1988 is dismissed, as the portions of that order appealed from were superseded by the order dated June 13, 1988, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered June 17, 1988 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent-appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The wife was properly granted leave to enter a judgment for arrears in the principal amount of $2,346.31 covering the period from August 1987 through December 4, 1987. The husband admitted that he failed to pay the maintenance required by the parties’ settlement stipulation which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. We agree with the Supreme Court that the husband did not show good cause for failing to seek relief from the support obligation before his default *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 244; *Penziner v Penziner,*123 AD2d 674, 676).

We also agree with the finding that the husband fell "far short of demonstrating the requisite extreme hardship upon which modification of this divorce judgment depends” *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). The husband may not avoid the maintenance provisions of the settlement stipulation by transferring control of his business to his current wife. Furthermore, there was no indication that the husband’s health problems had decreased his income or lessened his standard of living. Accordingly, the husband’s application to terminate the maintenance provisions was properly denied without a hearing *(see, Koch v Koch,*134 AD2d 574; *Nordhauser v Nordhauser,*130 AD2d 561; *Pintus v Pintus,*104 AD2d 866; *Matter of Doscher v Doscher,*80 AD2d 945, *affd*54 NY2d 655). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Case 7:07-cv-05800-KMK-LMS Document 3 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-05800-KMK-LMS Document 3 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
# EUR-Lex - 52005DP0268(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005DP0268(01)

**European Parliament decision on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Umberto Bossi (2004/2101(IMM)) **

*
Official Journal 157 E , 06/07/2006 P. 0069 - 0070 *

P6_TA(2005)0268

Request for defence of the immunity of Mr Bossi

--------------------------------------------------
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04863-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 20 of 20
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive 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 Quarterly Report
of SRKP 16, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





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





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





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerApril
      22, 2010
January 12, 2006

BY EMAIL AND FACSIMILE

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

NYMEX Submission 06.14
Re: Delisting Physically Settled Electricity Futures Contracts
Dear Ms. Jean Webb:

The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. ("NYMEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) of the delisting of
three, physically-settled electricity futures contracts. These are chapters: #501, Palo Verde
Electricity Futures Contract; #502 PJM, Electricity Futures Contract; #503, Mid-Columbia
Electricity Futures Contract. The Board of Directors voted in open session to approve these

amendments. There is no open interest in any of these contracts. They will be delisted effective
NYMEX Trade Date, January 23, 2005.

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6,
the Exchange hereby certifies that this clarification complies with the Act, including regulations
under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Jay Gottlieb,
Director, Research, at (212) 299-2607; or the undersigned at (212) 299-2390.

Very truly yours,

Robert A. Levin

Senior Vice President, Research
Exhibit
32







CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the quarterly report of GelTech Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q/A No. 1 for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Cordani,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





1.
            The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.








/s/ Michael CordaniMichael
      Cordani
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)





Dated:
February 16, 2010










In
connection with the quarterly report of GelTech Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q/A No. 1 for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Hull,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.
  
 /s/ Michael HullMichael
      Hull
                Chief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)
 
 Dated:
February 16, 2010
**EXHIBIT      31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT      TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14**

**PROMULGATED      UNDER**

**SECTION 302      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                    |                                          |                                                        |   |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:                  October 28, 2008 |                                          | MRU                  HOLDINGS, INC.                         |   |
|                                    |                                          |                                                        |   |
|                                    |                                          | /s/ Edwin                  J. McGuinn, Jr.   |   |
|                                    | By:                  Edwin J. McGuinn, Jr.    |                                                        |
|                                    | Its:                  Chief Executive Officer |                                                        |

----
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
154 So. 917

#### Clarence HIGGINBOTHAM v. STATE.

6 Div. 501.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 10, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                          ROBOTIC VISION SYSTEMS, INC.

ROBOTIC VISION SYSTEMS, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held
November 24, 2003 a resolution was duly adopted, in accordance with the
authority granted to the Board of Directors by the stockholders of the
Corporation at a meeting held November 11, 2003, setting forth an amendment to
the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation. The resolution
setting forth the amendment is as follows:

     RESOLVED, that Article FOURTH of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation
     be amended to read as follows:

          "FOURTH: the Corporation shall be authorized to issue one hundred
          million (100,000,000) shares with a par value of one cent ($0.01) per
          share.

          At 5:00 p.m., EST, on the date of the filing of this Certificate of
          Amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, all
          outstanding shares of Common Stock held by each holder of record on
          such date shall be automatically combined at the rate of one-for-five
          without any further action on the part of the holders thereof or the
          Corporation. No fractional shares will be issued as a result of this
          combination . In lieu of any fractional shares to which the
          stockholder would otherwise be entitled, the Corporation shall pay
          cash equal to such fraction multiplied by the then fair market value
          of the shares as determined by the Board of Directors of the
          Corporation."

SECOND: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by
Pat V. Costa, its President, and Jeffrey P. Lucas, its Secretary, this 26th day
of November, 2003.

                                                      /s/ Pat V. Costa
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Pat V. Costa, President

ATTEST:

/s/ Jeffrey P. Lucas
-----------------------------
Jeffrey P. Lucas, Secretary

                                      - 2 -
Case 1:07-cv-05404-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05404-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA No. 01-1079; MM Docket No. 01-25; RM-10055] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; dismissal. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document dismisses a petition for rulemaking filed by PharrNorth Radio requesting the allotment of Channel 291A at Northome, Minnesota.                         *See*66 FR 10266, February 14, 2001. PharrNorth withdrew its interest in an allotment at Northome, Minnesota, in accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-25, adopted April 18, 2001, and released April 27, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Radio broadcasting

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 01-12089 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### LAKEFRONT INVESTORS, LLC; Trustcapital Investments, LLC; Equity Trust Company, Custodian FBO Nicholas John Lazarchick IRA; Nicholas John Lazarchick (TTEE); CJR Duck Associates, LLC; Nicholas John Lazarchick, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Janet Ann SYDNOR; Charles Vernon Clarkson, Debtors-Appellants, and Michael G. Rinn, Trustee.

No. 12-2388.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2013.

Decided: May 3, 2013.

Janet Ann Sydnor, Charles Vernon Clarkson, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen Ari *222Metz, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Appel-lees.

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janet Ann Sydnor and Charles Vernon Clarkson appeal from the district court’s order reversing the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their bankruptcy cases. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lakefront Investors, LLC v. Sydnor,*484 B.R. 72 (D.Md.2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*