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


                                                                      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 Annual Report of the WMS Industries, Inc. ("the Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Brian R. Gamache,
Chief Executive 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 and 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/ Brian R. Gamache
----------------------------
Brian R. Gamache
Chief Executive Officer
September 2, 2004


                            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 the WMS Industries, Inc. ("the Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Scott D. Schweinfurth,
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 and 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/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
----------------------------
Scott D. Schweinfurth
Chief Financial Officer
September 2, 2004
#### RICHARD O’HARA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, EX REL. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.

No. 18548

November 22, 1988

764 P.2d 489

*643
      *Lovell, Bilbray & Potter,*and *David M. Schieck,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Brian McKay,*Attorney General, *Scott W. Doyle,*Deputy, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*
      *1*

This is an appeal from that part of a district court judgment concluding that appellant, Richard O’Hara, did not have the right to control, designate, or otherwise direct, the disposition of retirement benefits due his spouse, Dorothy O’Hara.

Prior to her retirement from the Clark County School District, Dorothy O’Hara selected a retirement option pursuant to NRS 286.551 after discussing the decision with appellant. The option she selected paid the maximum monthly benefit available, but did not provide for residuary payments to a beneficiary upon her death. Dorothy selected that option because she believed it was more likely that she would outlive appellant. Unfortunately, Dorothy predeceased appellant, dying less than two months after retiring.

Appellant contends that Dorothy’s selection of a retirement option without his consent was an improper transfer of community property and voidable at his insistence. *See, e.g.,*Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106, 115 (Cal. 1976). Retirement benefits are generally divisible as community property to the extent that they are based upon services performed during the marriage, whether or not the benefits are presently payable. Forrest v. Forrest, 99*644Nev. 602, 607, 668 P.2d 275, 279 (1983). However, community property interests of a nonemployee spouse do not limit the employee’s freedom to agree to terms of retirement benefits. *See*In re Marriage of Brown, 544 P.2d 561, 568 (Cal. 1976). The retirement program is based upon actuarial principles and its rules must be strictly enforced to ensure that funds will be available in the future. An employee spouse may select among retirement options so long as the community property interest of the nonemployee spouse is not defeated. *See*Willis v. Bd. of Admin., Pub. Emp. Retire., 226 Cal.Rptr. 567 (Cal.Ct.App. 1986). In this case, Dorothy based her selection of a retirement option on her belief that appellant would predecease her. Though Dorothy was wrong, her selection did not defeat appellant’s interest in the retirement fund. But for her death appellant would have enjoyed the benefits of her selection. Therefore, we conclude that Dorothy’s selection was not an improper transfer of community property voidable at the insistence of appellant. According, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.2

This appeal was previously dismissed in an unpublished order of this court. Pursuant to a request, we have determined that our decision should be issued in a published opinion. Accordingly, we hereby issue this opinion in place of our order dismissing this appeal filed October 17, 1988.

The Honorable E. M. Gunderson, Chief Justice, did not participate in the decision of this appeal.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Newark, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0788

Issued: June 25, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 12, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 4, 2021 merit decision of

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0788.

In a letter dated May 24, 2021 and received June 2, 2021, appellant requested that the 

appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0788 is dismissed.

Issued: June 25, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Collexis Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Collexis Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 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 on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Technology Holdings, Inc. .



By:/s/ William D. KirklandName:William D. KirklandTitle:Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and DirectorDate:May 21, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,624,168
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     385,854,725
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                117,512,057
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,101,943
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,043,000
<LOANS>                                    308,807,719
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,424,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             458,474,577
<DEPOSITS>                                 385,854,725
<SHORT-TERM>                                29,069,426
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          6,072,171
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,018,418
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,432,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             458,474,577
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             20,347,748
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,707,912
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                71,547
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            25,127,207
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          10,821,465
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,460,933
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,571,274
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   95,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               6,031
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             13,914,159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,965,062
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,965,062
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,048,962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.62
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,009,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,878,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                200,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,424,472
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  118,586
<RECOVERIES>                                   133,834
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,424,472
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,057,724
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        366,748
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67180-67181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, Clinical Trials of 
Silymarin for Liver Diseases.
    Date: December 1, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Double Tree Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.

[[Page 67181]]

    Contact Person: Martina Schmidt, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, Nat'l Center for 
Complementary and Alt Medicine, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-3456. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e99a8a8184808d8488a984888085c7878081c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d3e2e25202429202c0d202c242163232425632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 28, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21989 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2007072EN.01002701.xml

| 29.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/27

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4585 — BMW Intec/Dekra Südleasing Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 72/08)

On 23 March 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4585. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4585. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### STATE v. GODWIN

No. 46 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 55.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 19 May 1969.
#### CRAWFORD v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

No. 16 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 343.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 5 March 1969.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WHITEWATER POST 

OFFICE, Whitewater, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0310

Issued: February 1, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On December 28, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a January 4, 2022 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0310.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the January 4, 2022 decision was July 3, 2022. As appellant did 

not file an appeal with the Board until December 28, 2022, more than 180 days after the

January 4, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0310 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0310, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0310 is dismissed.

Issued: February 1, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350,
the undersigned officer of Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby
certifies that to the knowledge of the undersigned:

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine
month periods ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
sections 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Joseph Czyzyk                                
| |  |                                                  
| |  | Joseph CzyzykChief Executive Officer and Director

May 14, 2004

29
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA 

PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL OFFICE,

Philadelphia, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0776

Issued: June 2, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Sara Lowman, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 18, 2022 appellant, through her representative,filed an appeal from a June 17, 

2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0776.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 

days of the date appellant filed his/her appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does 

not contain a final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no cla im f or a f ee f or 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board.

Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).
2

of the current appeal.3 The June 17, 2021 decision is an acceptance of the claim, not a final 

adverse decision. As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board 

may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0776, 

must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0776 is dismissed.5

Issued: June 2, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days f rom the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

4

Id.

5 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
#### Daniel L. BLEES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 05-3067.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 11, 2005.

*ORDER*

Daniel L. Blees moves without opposition for reconsideration of the court’s January 7, 2005 order dismissing his petition for review for failure to file a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination, with Rule 15(c) statement attached.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Blees’ motion for reconsideration is granted.

(2) The court’s January 7, 2005 dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

(3) Blees’ brief is due within 21 days of the date of filing of this order.