alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
27


Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


In connection with the Annual Report of AFP Imaging Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I David Vozick, Co-Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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; 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/   David Vozick


David Vozick,
Chairman of the Board
Co-Principal Executive Officer
September 27, 2004
Exhibit
23.1













CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We
have issued our Auditors’ report, dated March 31, 2019, accompanying the audited consolidated financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 of Flexible Solutions International, Inc. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
of such report in the Company’s registration statements on Form S-8 (File No’s.333-139815 and 333-176556).







|                  |  |                                   
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|Vancouver,
Canada |  | Chartered Professional Accountants
|March 31, 2019    |  |
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DUANE JOSEPH Mc COY, JR.,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 3906 STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 18, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Br evard County , James H. Earp , Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nicole J. Martingano , Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Duane Joseph McCoy, Jr., appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment and sentence without further discussion. However, we note that, although the trial court orally announced the conditions of probation McCoy violated, it did not specify those conditions in its written order. We remand this case to the trial courtto enter a corrected order identifying the conditions McCoy violated. See Lewis v. State ,

8 So. 3d 370, 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Payne v. State, 920 So. 2d 742, 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with Instructions.

PALMER , WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Rayford Lewis BURKE

181A93-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 19, 2019

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Gretchen Engel, Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorneys at Law, for Burke, Rayford Lewis

Danielle Marquis Elder, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Mikko Red Arrow, Assistant District Attorney, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Christopher A. Brook, Legal Director, Burton Craige, James Coleman, Irving Joyner, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Laws, for ACLU Capital Punishment Project, et al.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Brian W. Stull, Henderson Hill, Attorneys at Law, for Promise of Justice Initiative, et al.

Jin Hee Lee, Merrel Murray, Attorneys at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

*885The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 18th of March 2019 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of March 2019."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 19th day of April 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
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 Annual Report of Global Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lester S. Caesar, CPA, the 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.


                Date: March 28, 2006                     /s/ Lester S. Caesar
                Amended Date: September 6, 2006          Lester S. Caesar, CPA
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          11,127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    249,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,631
<PP&E>                                         152,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,767,785
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          9
<COMMON>                                        30,811
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,201,027)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,120
<SALES>                                        151,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,924
<CGS>                                          232,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,689,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,847,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,847,222)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                             VISTEON CAPITAL TRUST I

            THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF VISTEON CAPITAL TRUST I (the "Trust")
is being duly executed and filed by Bank One Delaware, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Bank One Trust Company, N.A., a national banking association, and
Mary Winston, an individual, as trustees, to form a business trust under the
Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.) (the "Act").

            1.    NAME. The name of the business trust formed hereby is Visteon
                  Capital Trust I.

            2.    DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee
                  of the Trust in the State of Delaware is Bank One Delaware,
                  Inc., Three Christina Centre, 201 N. Walnut Street,
                  Wilmington, DE 19801.

            3.    EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective
                  upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of
                  Delaware.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed, in one or more
counterparts, this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of
the Act.


                                         BANK ONE DELAWARE, INC.,
                                             as Trustee

                                         By:/s/ Sandra L. Caruba
                                             Name:  Sandra L. Caruba
                                             Title: Vice President


                                         BANK ONE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
                                             as Trustee

                                         By:/s/ Sandra L. Caruba
                                             Name:  Sandra L. Caruba
                                             Title: Vice President

                                         /s/ Mary Winston
                                         MARY WINSTON, as Trustee
EXHIBIT
23.1








Cinnamon
Jang Willoughby & Company





Chartered
Accountants


A
Partnership of Incorporated Professionals











We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Flexible Solutions International Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-139815) of our report
dated February 25, 2009 relating to the financial statements of Flexible
Solutions International Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007,
which appear in this Form 10-K.







/s/
      “Cinnamon Jang
      Willoughby & Company”Chartered
      Accountants







Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada





March 25,
2009
----

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings

(Official Journal of the European Union L 133 of 30 April 2004)

In the contents, on page 1 in the title and on page 8 in the closing formula:

for:

               ‘               7 April 2004               ’,

read:

               ‘               21 April 2004               ’.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Shakita Necole WALTON

No. 311PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Walton, Shakita Necole.

Heather Haney, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney Generals, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 20th of September 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following *624order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of October 2018 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-66935 for Hartford Life and
Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41427 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NICANDRO CASTRO-ALCALA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 98-CR-424-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 27, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicandro Castro-Alcala (“Castro”) challenges his guilty-plea

conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. Castro contends that the district court erred by failing

to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) during rearraignment and

that the failure requires that his conviction be reversed. 

This appeal is frivolous. In reviewing whether the district

court complied with the dictates of Rule 11, this court

“conduct[s] a straightforward, two-question `harmless error’ 
No. 98-41427 

-2-

analysis: (1) Did the sentencing court in fact vary from the

procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such variance

affect substantial rights of the defendant?” United States v.

Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Although he

acknowledges his argument is subject to harmless-error review,

counsel makes no argument that Castro’s substantial rights were

affected; accordingly, there is no reversible error. See id. 

The appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 

5th Cir. R. 42.2. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6946

JOHNNIE GATHERS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Evans Correctional Institution, Warden; 

HENRY MCMASTER, South Carolina Attorney General, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (9:08-cv-03987-HMH-BM) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Johnnie Gathers, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Heath McAlvin 

Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South 

Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Johnnie Gathers seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order affirming the order of the magistrate judge denying 

Gathers’ motion to compel discovery. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Gathers seeks to 

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory 

or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. We deny Gathers’ 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. 

DISMISSED
#### In re ADVANTAGE INVESTORS MORTGAGE CORP. MORTGAGE FUNDS LITIGATION Decision One Mortgage Co., LLC v. Advantage Investors Mortgage Corp., W.D. North Carolina, C.A. No. 3:02-383 Ohio Savings Bank v. Advantage Investors Mortgage Corp., N.D.Ohio, C.A. No. 1:02-2072

No. 1523.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

June 17, 2003.

Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ and ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., Judges of the Panel.

*ORDER DENYING TRANSFER*

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Ohio.1 Advantage In*1380vestors Mortgage Corp., the defendant in both actions, moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Texas or the Eastern District of Virginia. The respective plaintiffs in the two actions, Decision One Mortgage Co., LLC, and Ohio Savings Bank, oppose transfer.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law in this docket now consisting of only two actions (one of which, in the Western District of North Carolina, is already the subject of an order compelling arbitration) are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. *See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation,*446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). *See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third,*§ 31.14 (1995).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these two actions is denied.

1

. The Section 1407 motion, as filed, also pertained to two additional actions: *Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB v. Advantage Investors Mortgage Corp.,*S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:02-9240; and *Advantage Investors Mortgage Corp. v. Decision One Mortgage Co., LLC, et al.,*N.D. Texas, C.A. No. 3:02-2622. The New York action was ordered dismissed on *1380consent of the parties on May 16, 2003; and the Texas action was ordered dismissed with prejudice on April 14, 2003. Accordingly, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to these two actions is now moot.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 4.1(a)


                                           Subject to Provisions on Reverse Side

                           Incorporated under the laws
                            of the State of Colorado


        Number                                                         Shares


        ------                                                         ------

                                 AspenBio, Inc.

Common Stock

This certifies that ___________________________________________________ is the
registered holder of _________________________________________________ Shares of
                                 AspenBio, Inc.
transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person
or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

         In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to
be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunder
affixed this ____ day of __________ A.D. ____________.



---------------------------------                     --------------------------
Secretary                                             President


<PAGE>


For Value Received, ________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto______________
________________________________________________________________________________
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and
appoint ________________________________________________________________________
Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated
      ------------------------------

       In presence of

---------------------------------------   --------------------------------------
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41874 c/w

No. 06-40003

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EFRAIN YBARRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:02-CR-181-2

USDC No. 2:03-CR-409-ALL

--------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Efrain Ybarra appeals the sentences imposed after the

district court revoked the terms of supervised release that

Ybarra was serving in connection with his conviction of

misprision of possession with intent to distribute marijuana

(USDC No. 2:02-CR-181-2) and his conviction of escape from the

federal prison where he was confined for the misprision

conviction (USDC No. 2:03-CR-409-ALL). Ybarra argues that the
No. 05-41874 c/w 

No. 06-40003

-2-

district court’s written judgments of revocation conflict with

the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence.

After revoking Ybarra’s terms of supervised release in both

cases, the district court imposed a 12-month imprisonment term in

both cases. At the sentencing hearing the district court

specifically stated that the imprisonment terms were to run

concurrently. However, the written judgment in the escape case

states that the term is to run consecutively to the imprisonment

term in the misprision case. The written judgment in the

misprision case is silent regarding whether the term is

concurrent or consecutive. Thus, the district court’s oral

pronouncement of concurrent sentences conflicts with the written

judgments, which, when read together, require the imprisonment

terms to run consecutively.

Therefore, because the language of the district court’s oral

pronouncement of sentence conflicts with its written judgments

with regard to the concurrent nature of the sentences, the cases

are remanded for the district court to amend the written

judgments to conform to the district court’s oral pronouncement

of sentence. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942

(5th Cir. 2001).

REMANDED.