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




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I, Carl
Oberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of Classic Costume Company,
Inc.,  (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1)    the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is
attached as an exhibit (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
Registrant.




November
      12, 2008
              By:
              /s/ 
      Carl ObergCarl
      ObergPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
      Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MOTORVAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,632,605
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  951,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                    84,662
<INVENTORY>                                  1,667,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,441,540
<PP&E>                                         739,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 496,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,340,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          954,567
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,539
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,341,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,340,721
<SALES>                                     10,017,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,017,020
<CGS>                                        5,548,288
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,548,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,905,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (56,504)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (379,909)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,558
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (385,467)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (385,467)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LONNIE BROWN, et al, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 

et al,

Defendants.

/

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11481

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

On May 28, 2009 the Court issued an order requiring the plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within 30 days. Unless the plaintiff files an amended complaint within 10 days

of this order the case will be dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2009 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Lonnie Brown, Lisa

Brown, 11800 Rattalee Lake Road, Davisburg, MI 48350 and the attorneys of record on

this date, July 13, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-11481-AC-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 51
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1393

ARTHUR B. BOYD, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION, d/b/a R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center; JOEL LEE; THE BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY,

d/b/a “The Sun” Newspaper; DOUGLAS BIRCH; THE

WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, d/b/a The Washington

Post; BRIAN MOOAR; JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Prince George’s Journal; JOHN

DOE; AMERICAN MEDIA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a

National Enquirer, Incorporated,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-3105-WMN)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Arthur B. Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Peter Edward Keith, David

William Kinkopf, GALLAGHER, EVELIUS & JONES, Baltimore, Maryland;

Douglas D. Connah, Jr., VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore,

Maryland; Kevin Taylor Baine, Max Ian Stier, Paul Martin Wolff,

Julie C. Hilden, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, Washington, D.C.; Mary R.

Craig, MARY R. CRAIG, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Alice Neff Lucan,

Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* This appeal was interlocutory when filed. The case was

closed in the district court on May 18, 1998.

3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on Jan. 16, 1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on March 12, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
4

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Marie L. Jackson v. Henry M. Erkins.

Motion granted upon appellant filing the documents specified in the moving papers with the clerk of this court, to be held by the clerk pending the appeal. Settle order on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BRASSIE GOLF
CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB DECEMBER 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         806,079
<SECURITIES>                                    39,912
<RECEIVABLES>                                  925,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (437,400)
<INVENTORY>                                    133,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,602,751
<PP&E>                                      11,991,452
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,596,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,099,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,007,536
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        375
<COMMON>                                        24,079
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,818,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,099,069
<SALES>                                        786,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,231,902
<CGS>                                          377,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,056,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               307,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,316,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,515,732)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   110,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,625,732)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,625,732)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.43)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. STEPHANIE SUZANNE VANDUKER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 20-4021 (D.C. No. 4:19-CR-00079-DN-1) (D. Utah)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BRISCOE , MORITZ , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Stephanie Suzanne Vanduker plead ed guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). She was sentenced to serve 96 months in prison. Although her plea agreement contained a waiver of her appellate ri ghts, she filed a notice of appeal. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement pursuant to United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Under Hahn , we consider “(1) whether the di sputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and

* This order and judgment is not bi nding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 14, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 voluntarily waived [her] appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a misca rriage of justice.” Id . at 1325. The government asserts that all of the Hahn conditions have been satisfied because : (1) Ms. Vanduker’s appeal is within the scope of the appeal waiver; (2) she knowingly and voluntarily waived her appellate rights; and (3) enforcing the waiv er would not result in a miscarriage of justice. In response to the government’s moti on, Ms. Vanduker concedes her appeal waiver is enforceable under the standard set forth in Hahn . Based on this concession and our independent review of the reco rd, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. This dismissal does not affect Ms. Vanduker’s right to pursu e post-conviction relief on the grounds permitted in her plea agreement.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (Form 10-Q), I, Christopher P. Johns, President of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNSCHRISTOPHER P. JOHNSPresident


May 4, 2011



---

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (Form 10-Q), I, Sara A. Cherry, Vice President,
Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SARA A. CHERRYSARA A. CHERRYVice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer


May 4, 2011
Exhibit 31.2
                          CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. McKelvey, certify that:

     1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
of Skyview Development Corp.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue  statements of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact  necessary  to make the statements made,  in  light  of  the
circumstances  under  which  such  statements  were   made,   not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,  and
other  financial  information included  in  this  report,  fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of  operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,  and  for,
the periods presented in this report;

      4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officers
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls  and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act  Rules  13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

           (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or  caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under  our  supervision,  to  ensure  that  material  information
relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries,  is  made  known  to  us  by  others  within  those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report  is
being prepared;

           (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report  our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls  and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by
this report based on such evaluation; and

           (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting  that
occurred  during the small business issuer's most  recent  fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely  to
materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal  control
over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)
and  I  have  disclosed, based on our most recent  evaluation  of
internal  control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

            (a)    All   significant  deficiencies  and  material
weaknesses  in the design or operation of internal  control  over
financial  reporting  which are reasonable  likely  to  adversely
affect  the  small business issuer's ability to record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

           (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in  the
small   business   issuer's  internal  control   over   financial
reporting.


Dated: May 15, 2007           By: /s/ Donald R. McKelvey
                              Donald R. McKelvey
                              Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-151527, 333-140233, 333-135220, 333-131324, 333-126773, 333-112417, 333-108937, 333-147561, 333-161206) pertaining to the 1991 Employee and
Consultant Stock Plan, 1993 Director Stock Option Plan, 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 2001 Stock Incentive Plan and 2003 Israeli Share Option Plan of DSP Group, Inc., the 239,000 shares of common stock of DSP Group, Inc. issuable pursuant to
options granted on December 1, 2004, and the 235,000 shares of common stock of DSP Group, Inc. issuable pursuant to options granted on October 31, 2007, of our reports dated March 16, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of DSP Group, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of DSP Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.



/S/    KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERKOST FORER GABBAY
& KASIERERA Member of Ernst & Young
Global


Tel-Aviv, Israel

March 16, 2010
EXHIBIT
32.1.


Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








We,
Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting
Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby
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 our knowledge, based
upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2008
of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
Registrant.








Date:
            
            August
      13, 2008
            
            By:
            /s/  Juhani
      TaskinenJuhani
      Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer





By:
            /s/  Trupti
      MehtaTrupti
      Mehta, Chief Accounting Officer/CFO








* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
18459.

#### WILLIAMS *v.*SMITH.

Submitted January 12, 1954

Decided February 8, 1954.

*329
      *C. C.*Crockett, for plaintiff in error.

*Lester F. Watson,*contra.

Sutton, Justice.

The question for determination is whether the evidence for the plaintiff was sufficient to prevent a nonsuit. Therefore, the relevant evidence has been set out at length.

“A nonsuit shall not be granted merely because the court would not allow a verdict for plaintiff to stand; but if the plain-jiff fails to make out a prima facie case, or if, admitting all the facts proved and all reasonable deductions from them, the plaintiff ought not to recover, a nonsuit shall be granted.” Code § 110-310. If the plaintiff fails to prove what he has alleged, or if he actually proves every fact charged, but on cross-examination or otherwise disproves his case by establishing beyond doubt the existence of other defensive facts which make it manifest that he ought not on the whole evidence to recover, a nonsuit should be granted. *Evans*v. *Josephine Mills,*119 *Ga.*448, 450 *330(46 S. E. 674). “A motion to nonsuit presents for decision the single question whether or not the evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiff, assuming it to be true, proves his case as laid.” *Reeves*v. *Jackson,*113 *Ga.*182 (2) (38 S. E. 314); *Clark*v. *Bandy,*196 *Ga.*546 (27 S. E. 2d 17). In passing on the question of whether or not the court rightly awarded the nonsuit, the evidence must be taken most strongly in favor of the plaintiff. *National Land & Coal Co.*v. *Zugar,*171 *Ga.*228 (2) (155 S. E. 7); *Burton*v. *Hart,*206 *Ga.*87, 90 (55 S. E. 2d 594); *Wright*v. *Roseman,*209 *Ga.*176, 183 (71 S. E. 2d 426); *Jackson*v. *Thompson,*77 *Ga. App.*367, 370 (48 S. E. 2d 903), and citations'.

The plaintiff’s testimony on direct examination was amply sufficient to make out a prima facie case. While he answered, “by agreement, yes,” when asked on cross-examination, “after erecting this fence, marking out that line, blazing those trees, by your conduct and acts, did you not recognize that as the dividing line between these two tracts,” yet, the above answer was not inconsistent with the petitioner’s testimony as a whole, to ’ the effect that under their agreement the fence merely marked a temporary line for convenience until they could secure the services of a surveyor to measure out the 150 acres called for in the petitioner’s deed, at which time the permanent boundary was to be established. Furthermore, the plaintiff testified that they asked the pulpwood cruiser about running the line, and he said he could not run a line that would stand up. There was no evidence that the pulpwood cruiser or any other person was requested to measure out the 150 acres until the survey that the petitioner relies on was made on May 19, 1952.

Under the evidence in the present case, it was error to grant a nonsuit.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*