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



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Hyde, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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 operation of the Company.



|                     |  |                                            
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: April 19, 2005 |  | /s/ Thomas A. Hyde, Jr.                    
|                     |  | Thomas A. Hyde, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
John TUBIOLO and wife Vickie Tubiolo v. ABUNDANT LIFE CHURCH, INC.

No. 621P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for John Tubiolo and Vickie Tubiolo.

Katherine Freeman, Paul I. Klein, Charlotte, for Church.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th day of December 2006 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."

HUDSON, J., recused.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

No. 08-14-00223-CR

IN RE: DOUGLAS WAYNE JENKINS, §

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

 Relator. §

IN MANDAMUS

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge of the 112th District Court of Pecos County, Texas, 

and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny 

the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1


The following certification is provided by the undersigned President and
Principal Executive Officer of UnionBancorp, Inc. on the basis of such officer's
knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

In connection with the Annual Report of UnionBancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Scott A. Yeoman,
President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ SCOTT A. YEOMAN
                               ------------------------------------------------
                               Name: Scott A. Yeoman
                               Title: President and Principal Executive Officer
                               Date: March 24, 2006
DIGGS v. NOVANT HEALTH, et al.

No. 299P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2006.

Richard V. Bennett, Roberta B. King, Joshua H. Bennett, Winston-Salem, for Forsyth Medical Center.

Harold L. Kenneth, III, Harvey L. Kennedy, Annie Brown Kennedy, Winston-Salem, for Mary Diggs.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of June 2006 by N.C. Hospital Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of June 2006."
Exhibit 32.2

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 Atlas America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew A. Jones, 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 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/ MATTHEW A. JONES   
|Matthew A. Jones       
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2009
**Exhibit 99.2**

****

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, I, Thomas E. Legro, Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of JMC Selkirk,Inc., as Managing General Partner of Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

| (1)    |   | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. |

| May 14, 2003 |   | /s/ THOMAS E. LEGRO Thomas E. Legro Vice President, Controller and     Chief Accounting Officer JMC Selkirk, Inc. |
|--------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JMC Selkirk, Inc. and will be retained by JMC Selkirk, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying balance sheets of ORPHAN MEDICAL, INC. as of September 30, 1997,
and the related statements of operations for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,694,441
<SECURITIES>                                 6,938,444
<RECEIVABLES>                                  384,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    163,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,256,646
<PP&E>                                         447,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                 134,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,569,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,873,989
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,974
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,630,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,569,718
<SALES>                                        412,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               412,524
<CGS>                                          231,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  231,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,990,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (495,445)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,314,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,314,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,314,611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.54)
        


</TABLE>
STATE v. Ryan Gabriel GARCELL.

No. 465A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 22, 2007.

Thomas Maher, Chapel Hill, for Ryan Gabriel Garcell.

Charlie C. Walker, Asheville, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of January 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve the Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 28th day of February 2007 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of January 2007."
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of issuance of interim directive. 

# SUMMARY:

The Forest Service is issuing an interim directive (ID) to Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, Chapter 40, to enumerate measures, other than service days, that may be used to allocate use for outfitting and guiding activities on National Forest System lands. This ID is issued as number FSH 2709.11-2005-1. 

# DATES:

This ID is effective August 24, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        ID 2709.11-2005-1 is available electronically from the Forest Service via the World Wide Web at                         *http://www.fs.fed.us/​im/​directives.*                         A paper copy may be obtained by contacting Carolyn Holbrook, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, by mail at Mail Stop 1124, Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1124; or by telephone at (202) 205-1399.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn Holbrook, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff (202) 205-1399. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Forest Service is issuing ID 2709.11-2005-1 to incorporate minor changes to the current direction in FSH 2709.11, section 41.53, regarding methods of measuring authorized use in a permit for outfitting and guiding on National Forest System lands. The ID adds definitions for: “allocation of use,” “quota,” and “service day” (sec. 41.53c); provides that quotas and other units of measure may be used in lieu of service days to allocate and authorize use (sec. 41.53h, para. 2b(1) and sec. 41.53j, para. 4); and adds transportation livestock as an item to be included and accounted for in the permit, operating plan, or annual itinerary (sec. 41.53j, para.4). 

Dated: August 12, 2005. 

Jack G. Troyer, 

Acting Chief. 

[FR Doc. 05-16767 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
RONALD R. CHADWICK, P.C.
                           Certified Public Accountant
                        2851 South Parker Road, Suite 720
                             Aurora, Colorado 80014
                             Telephone (303)306-1967
                                Fax (303)306-1944


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

I consent to the  incorporation by reference in this  Registration  Statement of
Marine  Exploration,  Inc. on Form S-8, of my report dated  September 8, 2009 on
the consolidated financial statements of Marine Exploration,  Inc. for the years
ended June 30, 2008 and 2009,  which report is included in the Annual  Report on
Form 10-K/A for 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on April
28, 2010.

/s/ Ronald R. Chadwick, P.C.
--------------------------------------
RONALD R. CHADWICK, P.C.
CityplaceAurora, StateColorado
June 24, 2010
#### In the Matter of Ricardo Perez et al., Appellants, v David Galarza, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 574]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law §§ 16-100, 16-102, and 16-116, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating David Galarza as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2005, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council, 38th Council District, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 8, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As a general rule, a candidate’s designating petition will be invalidated on the ground of fraud only if there is a showing that the entire designating petition is permeated with that fraud *509
      *(see Matter of Ferraro v McNab,*60 NY2d 601, 603 [1983]; *Matter of Proskin v May,*40 NY2d 829, 830 [1976]; *Matter of Fonvil v Michel,*308 AD2d 424, 425 [2003]; *Matter of McRae v Jennings,*307 AD2d 1012 [2003]; *Matter of Ragusa v Roper,*286 AD2d 516 [2001]). Even when the designating petition is not permeated with fraud, however, when the candidate has participated in or is chargeable with knowledge of the fraud, the designating petition will generally be invalidated *(see Matter of Saitta v Rivera,*264 AD2d 490 [1999]; *Matter of Flower v D’Apice,*104 AD2d 578 [1984], *affd*63 NY2d 715 [1984]; *Matter of Layden v Gargiulo,*77 AD2d 933, 934 [1980]).

Here, contrary to the petitioners’ contention, they failed to make a prima facie showing that the designating petition was permeated with fraud *(see Matter of Calvi v McLaughlin,*264 AD2d 453 [1999]; *Matter of Miller v Boyland,*143 AD2d 237 [1988]; *Matter of Thomas v Simon,*89 AD2d 952 [1982], *affd*57 NY2d 744 [1982]). Of the nine witnesses who testified, six testified that the subscribing witness might have been with the candidate when he or she signed the designating petition, and two testified that the subscribing witness was with the candidate when each of them signed. Furthermore, only one witness testified that the subscribing witness was not with the candidate when she signed the designating petition, and the petitioners presented no evidence to establish that the candidate participated in or was chargeable with the knowledge of any fraud with respect to that signature *(see Matter of McRae v Jennings, supra; Matter of Meeks v Pruitt,*185 AD2d 961 [1992]; *Matter of Corrente v McNab,*96 AD2d 915 [1983]; *Matter of Cullen v Power,*21 AD2d 698 [1964]). Any irregularity in this single signature does not render the entire petition permeated with fraud *(see Matter of O’Donnell v Ryan,*19 AD2d 781 [1963], *affd*13 NY2d 885 [1963]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the petitioners’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20931

SOUTHWEST MOBILE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

versus STEWART & STEVENSON SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-92-386) July 12, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This matter is before the court on the ap peal by Stewart & Stevenson
Services, Inc., of an adverse jury verdict and the court’s award of attorneys’ fees,
and also the court's denial of their motion for attorneys' fees. Having considered
the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent p arts of the records, and2

finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM.
STATE v. SWANN.

No. COA06-1410.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007.

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Buncombe (03CRS9303).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,708,755
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  765,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      41,660,751
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,211,054)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,850,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,291,336
<BONDS>                                     23,698,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,028
<COMMON>                                        48,588
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,555,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,850,505
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,743,588
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,613,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             428,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (465,487)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Jerome Cannon McCOY.

No. 620P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Charlesena E. Walker, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Jerome Cannon McCoy.

Karen E. Long, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 4th day of November 2005 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of November 2005 by Attorney General in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."