alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32


CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO





18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Netsmart Technologies, Inc.,
      for the period ended December 31, 2006, I James L. Conway, Chief Executive
      Officer of Netsmart Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.  this
      Form
      10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 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 this Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of Netsmart Technologies, Inc.





Date:
      March 16, 2007





By: /s/
      James L. Conway


James
      L.
      Conway


Chief
      Executive Officer







In
      connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Netsmart Technologies, Inc.
      for the period ended December 31, 2006, I, Anthony F. Grisanti, Chief Financial
      Officer of Netsmart Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.  this
      Form
      10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 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 this Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of Netsmart Technologies, Inc.





Date:
      March 16, 2007





By: /s/
      Anthony F. Grisanti


Anthony
      F. Grisanti


Chief
      Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Netsmart Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Netsmart Technologies,
      Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of AVANTImmunotherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify that to theirknowledge and in their respective capacities that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date:  August 11, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/ ANTHONY  S. MARUCCI                |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Name:  | Anthony S.  Marucci                    |
|                        |   | Title: | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |   |   |                                   |
| Date:  August 11, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/ AVERY W.  CATLIN                   |
|                        |   | Name:  | Avery W.  Catlin                       |
|                        |   | Title: | Senior Vice  President and             |
|                        |   |   | Chief  Financial Officer               |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, norshall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12256]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,670]


Indalex, Inc.; Girard, OH; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on March 3, 2010, applicable to workers of Indalex, Inc., Girard, Ohio. 
The notice was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2010 (75 
FR 21361).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of aluminum extrusions, coatings, and fabrications.
    The review shows that on May 1, 2008, a certification of 
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance was issued for all 
workers of Indalex Aluminum Solutions, Girard, Ohio, separated from 
employment on or after March 26, 2007, through May 1, 2010. The notice 
was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28167).
    In order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the 
Department is amending the July 13, 2008 impact date established for 
TA-W-71,670, to read May 2, 2010.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,670 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Indalex, Inc., Girard, Ohio (TA-W-71,670) who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
May 2, 2010 through March 3, 2012; and Indalex, Inc., City of 
Industry, California (TA-W-71,670A); Indalex, Inc., Burlington, 
North Carolina (TA-W-71,670B); Indalex, Inc., Mountain Top, 
Pennsylvania (TA-W-71,670C); Indalex, Inc., Connersville, Indiana 
(TA-W-71,670D); Indalex, Inc., Elkhart, Indiana (TA-W-71,670E); 
Indalex, Inc., Gainesville, Georgia (TA-W-71,670F); and Indalex, 
Inc., Kokomo, Indiana (TA-W-71,670G), who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after July 13, 2008, 
through March 3, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened with 
total or partial separation from employment on date of certification 
through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of May, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-12256 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Annual Report of TLC Vision Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James C. Wachtman,
Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
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.

                                        Date: March 10, 2006


                                        /s/ James C. Wachtman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        James C. Wachtman
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       82
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the six months ended June 30, 2000 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,555
<PP&E>                                          41,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,858
<BONDS>                                         20,119
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,378
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,124
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       603
<EPS-BASIC>                                      25.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    25.06


</TABLE>
Same Term.

*Before the same Justices.*

#### Barber *vs.*J. Kerr and W. Kerr.

fraud in 'obtaining a promissory note is a good defence to an action brought to collect such note.

Accordingly, where the book-keeper and cashier of a mercantile firm, by making false additions, and omitting to charge himself with large sums of money appropriated by him, had fraudulently made a balance to appear due to him, upon the books of the firm, when he was in fact indebted to the firm; and had taken a note for the balante thus appearing'; *Held*that, in an -action brought by him upon the note, the defendants might give in evidence the fraud of the plaintiff in procuring the «ame to be given.

This was an action on a promissory note made by John Kerr and endorsed by William Kerr, tried at the New-York circuit in 1844. The defendants pleaded tire general issue and gave notice of set-off. On the trial, the defendants offered to prove that the note in question ivas given on a purchase made by John Kerr of the plaintiff’s interest in the assets and *150property of the firm of Kerr & Barber, composed of the plaintiff and John Kerr; the note being given at the time of the dissolution of said copartnership. That the plaintiff had been book-keeper and cashier of the firm, and by making false additions and omitting to charge himself with large sums of money, he had fraudulently made a balance in his favor to appear upon the books; whereas in truth he was in debt to the firm. And that thereby he deceived the said John Kerr, and induced the defendants to give the note in question. The circuit judge was of opinion that the defence was inadmissible at law, and that the accounts could not be inquired into in this court, for the purpose of showing fraud in the consideration of said note; and he rejected the evidence offered, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon the exception to this ruling of the circuit judge, presented in various shapes, the case now came before the court, on a motion by the defendants for a new trial.

*J. T.*Brady, for the plaintiff.

*H. W. Robinson,*for the defendants.

*By the*Court,

Barctjlo, J.

The general rule is undoubted that courts of law have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of equity in cases of fraud. It is equally well settled that fraud in obtaining a promissory note is a good defence to an action brought to collect it. We are not aware of any principle which excepts this case *from the*ordinary rule.

The case of *Rogers*v. *Rogers,*(1 *Hall’s Sup. Court Rep.*391,) cited as a case in point, has but little application to the present case. There the superior court held, very properly, that the defendant could not, in a court of law, open partnership accounts for the purpose of showing a *mistake*in the note, and that the balance for which it was supposed to be given did not exist. There was no allegation of fraud; no pretence that the plaintiff had in any way misled or deceived the defendant. The case is entirely different from the present. There must b.e a new trial, costs to abide the event.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
ROZALIA GELFENBOYM and BENTSION ) ZILBERSHTEYN, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4319 ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ) HOLDERS OF NEW CENTURY HOME ) EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2005-A, ) ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH ) CERTIFICATES, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 28, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Pamela A.M. Campbell, Judge. Kelley A. Bosecker, St. Petersburg, for Appellants. Mary J. Walter of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
VILLANTI, MORRIS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 12 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILL J. CORY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 03-3079

v. (D.C. No. 02-CV-1313-JTM)

DORIS FAHLSTROM; THOMAS M.

TUGGLE, Judge; GUY R. STEIER;

PATRIK W. NEUSTROM;

SAMANTHA P. ANGELL; and

DANA BREWER,

(D. Kan.)

 Defendants-Appellees. 

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, McKAY and McCONNELL, Circuit

Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The present civil rights appeal involves two Kansas state court cases – a
-2-

probate case and a related civil case filed against Appellant to recover assets of

the estate. Appellant alleges that Appellees conspired to deny him due process

and denied him due process in connection with these two cases. In two separate

orders, the district court granted summary judgment for all Appellees, ruling that

Appellant’s attempt to obtain review of the judgments entered in the state court

cases were barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

We agree with the district court that Appellant’s civil rights claims are

barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman

Doctrine, “[a] federal district court does not have the authority to review final

judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings; such review may be had only in

the United States Supreme Court.” Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1436

(10th Cir. 1986); see also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The RookerFeldman Doctrine also bars cases that are “inextricably intertwined” with prior

state court decisions. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-87; Van Sickle, 791 F.2d at 1436. 

This is true even when “those challenges allege that the state court’s action was

unconstitutional.” Van Sickle, 791 F.2d at 1436 (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at

486).

Appellant’s claims all arise from the prior Kansas state court proceedings

or are inextricably intertwined with those proceedings. Therefore, after a
-3-

thorough review of the briefs and the record, and for substantially the same

reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned orders, we hold that no relief

is available to Appellant. 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



TO SECTION 960 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund IV (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 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 Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                        |  |                                   
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Daniel Stephenson             
|                        |  | Daniel Stephenson, General Partner
|                        |  | Rancon Realty Fund IV
**Exhibit 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

ALFA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 

(As of September 30, 2005)

 

Alfa Corporation (a Delaware corporation) 

 

Alfa Life Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa General Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa Agency Mississippi, Inc. (a Mississippi corporation) 

Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc. (a Georgia corporation) 

Alfa Financial Corporation (an Alabama corporation)

Alfa Benefits Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

The Vision Insurance Group, LLC (a Tennessee limited liability company)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Jihye Lee, Seoul, South Korea, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's affidavit with exhibits sworn to July 24, 2019, and upon reading the responsive correspondence by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department dated August 29, 2019, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468—a [Rogers], 173 AD3d 1427, 1428 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Serbinowski], 164 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2018]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effectively immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Devine and Rumsey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual
Report of China Longyi Group International Holdings Limited (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jie Chen,
President and 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Jie
ChenJie Chen President & Chief Executive Officer


April 14, 2009
A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China Longyi Group International Holdings Limited and
will be retained by China Longyi Group International Holdings Limited and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---