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


STATEMENT
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE





Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Fred
O’Connor, Chief Executive Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”),
hereby certifies that:





The
Company’s Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





/s/ Fred
O’Connor


Fred
O’Connor, Chief Executive Officer


Dated:
August 19, 2009
#### DE SOTO SECURITIES CO., Inc., et al., v. SAMPLE.

No. 4982.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

For former opinion, see 159 So. 433.

W. M. Pollock, of Mansfield, for appellant.

L. E. Colvin, of Mansfield, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In the original opinion in this case we stated that we could make no amendment of the judgment as to interest because plaintiffs had not answered the appeal requesting same. In this we were mistaken, as the record contains such an answer, praying that interest be allowed from November 29, 1932, instead *158of from judicial demand. As the account was past due when assumed hy Sample on February 1, 1932, and as demand upon Sample was made hy Ford before the transfer to the Securities Company, November 29, 1932, plaintiff is clearly entitled to the amendment prayed for.

Our original opinion is accordingly corrected hy amending the judgment appealed from by allowing 5 per cent, per annum interest thereon from November 29, 3932, until paid, and, as amended, affirming same.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed January 27, 2017.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-00047-CV

MARTIN, FLETCHER LOCUMS, INC., Appellant

V.

JOHN ARRAMBIDE AND MD PLACEMENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15712

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Lang

Before the Court is appellant’s January 23, 2017 unopposed motion to dismiss this 

appeal. In the motion, appellant asks this Court to dismiss the appeal and to assess costs of the 

appeal against the party incurring the costs. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss this 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

170047F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MARTIN, FLETCHER LOCUMS, INC., 

Appellant

No. 05-17-00047-CV V.

JOHN ARRAMBIDE AND MD 

PLACEMENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15712.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices 

Brown and Whitehill participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 27th day of January, 2017.
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Alphonse H. Kursheedt and Others, as Executors of and Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Frederic A. Kursheedt, Deceased, Respondents. Sol A. Cohn, Special Guardian of Albert Edward Kursheedt and Others, Infants, and Others, Appellants.

Decree affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Nicholas Benevento, Respondent.

[677 NYS2d 552]

Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals and upon consideration of the facts of record (CPL 470.25 [2] [d]), judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered May 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 4V2 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant appealed on a single issue of law, arguing that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. This Court reviewed the facts, finding that “the record * * * contains overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt” (239 AD2d 132, 133), but concluded that reversal of the judgment of conviction was nevertheless compelled under the authority of *People v Baldi*(54 NY2d 137, 147). The Court of Appeals having reversed and found that defendant was provided with meaningful representation under the circumstances (91 NY2d 708), there are no remaining issues for this Court’s consideration. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                 TRANSTAR, INC.

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (In thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 For the year ended December 31,
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1998         1997         1996          1995           1994
                                                      ----         ----         ----          ----           ----

<S>                                                 <C>          <C>          <C>            <C>            <C>
Income before income taxes,
 extraordinary item and change in           
 accounting principle.......................        $ 95,757     $110,579     $103,714       $93,915        $86,102

Fixed charges:

Interest expense and amortization of
 debt issuance costs........................        $ 12,942     $ 17,358     $ 21,314       $24,144        $25,253

Interest expense on rentals ................           7,904        7,976        7,854         6,057          6,225
                                                    --------     --------     --------       -------        -------
       Total fixed charges .................        $ 20,846     $ 25,334     $ 29,168       $30,201        $31,478
                                                    ========     ========     ========       =======        =======
Earnings before income taxes,
 extraordinary item, change in
 accounting principle and fixed
 charges....................................        $116,603     $135,913     $132,882      $124,116       $117,580
                                                    ========     ========     ========      ========       ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                      5.59         5.36         4.56          4.11           3.74
                                                        ====         ====         ====          ====           ====
</TABLE>

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

Income for the years 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998 includes non-recurring charges
(credits) of $(1.7) million, $(1.0) million, $7.0 million and $3.5 million,
respectively.
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 627

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel TECUMSEH.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. MCDERMOTT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

TECUMSEH.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en-
2

•HR 627 IH

1 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the

2 vessel TECUMSEH (Canadian registry number 815298).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                        12350000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5705000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   80760000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             102186000
<PP&E>                                         1171000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  281000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               102186000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         75262000
<BONDS>                                       34475000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 102186000
<SALES>                                      141652000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             141652000
<CGS>                                        117702000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                139926000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (14000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2014000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                1876000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3890000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       00
        

</TABLE>
#### Alvin H. FULLER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8422.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 8, 1938.

Bertram S. Boley, Herbert J. Haas, and Joseph F. Haas, all of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ralph E. Smith, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon the joint stipulation of counsel that the' above numbered and entitled cause be remanded to the United States Board of Tax Appeals, and was submitted to the court. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this cause be, and it is hereby, remanded to the United States Board of Tax Appeals, with the instructions that it enter its order that the transferee liability of the petitioner has been settled and satisfied. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the mandate of this court issue without delay.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Petition P1-08]

Notice is hereby given that the correct address for filing replies to Petitioner's counsel shown in the Notice of Filing, served August 5, 2008, in the above-titled petition, should have read: Edward D. Greenberg, Esq., Galland, Kharasch, Greenberg, Fellman & Swirsky, P.C., 1054 Thirty-First Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20007-4492.

Karen V. Gregory,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-18881 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
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 Quarterly Report of PCMT Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nachman Shlomo Kohen,
      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, to


the
      best
      of my knowledge and belief:




(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 the operation of the
      Company.





Date:
              August 13, 2007
            By
            /s/ Nachman
              Shlomo KohenNachman
              Shlomo Kohen,Chief
              Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
              Officer




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of ss.18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933,
      as
      amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
      before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
      incorporation language contained in such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided to
      the
      Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVE A. FREMPONG,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 79 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### Connelio Gaspero, Respondent, v. Frederick S. Myers, Appellant.

Interlocutory j udgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of *Maiorca*v. *Myers (ante,*p. 210), decided herewith. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-33938, No. 333-43196, No. 333-44128, and No.
333-58916) and on Form S-8 (No. 33-76324, No. 333-09135, No. 333-57141, No.
333-40940 and No. 333-65084) of NMS Communications Corporation (formerly,
Natural MicroSystems Corporation) of our report dated January 16, 2002, except
for Note 17 as to which the date is February 13, 2002, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2002
#### Ex Parte Gene Kellough.

No. 25140.

December 6, 1950.

State’s Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) January 10,1951.

Relator represented himself.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Relator filed in this court an original application for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that he was illegally confined in the penitentiary under a conviction upon a void indictment; claiming that he was indicted by the same grand jury which returned the indictment against Alex Leviness, which was held to have been returned by an illegal grand jury, and Leviness was ordered discharged from custody. See Leviness v. State, 155 Texas Crim. Rep. 85, 230 S. W. 2d 814.

The clerk of this court was directed to transmit the application for the writ of habeas corpus to the district judge of Hardin County, with instructions for him to set the matter down for hearing and ascertain whether it was a fact that the indictment in the case against the present relator was returned *357by the same grand jury that returned the indictment in the Leviness case. The Honorable Clyde E. Smith, District Judge of Hardin County, certifies to this court that the same grand jury which returned the Leviness indictment also returned the indictment against the relator in the present case.

It is unnecessary to repeat what was said in holding the grand jury which returned these indictments to have been an illegal grand jury, and the indictments void. The reasons appear fully in our discussion of the matter in the opinion in the Leviness case.

It follows that relator can not legally be held in the penitentiary in his conviction upon the invalid indictment, and that he should be discharged, and it is so ordered.

If Kellough has been reindicted he should be returned to the authorities in Hardin County for procedure under the new indictment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             286
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   294
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              205
<BONDS>                                        192,736
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (87,432)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,509
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              198
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,612
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,612
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,612
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### LORIA v. PIAZZA.

No. 17060.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 6, 1939.

James G. Schillin, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Guy J. D’Antonio, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Dr. Frank Loria brings this suit against Paul Piazza for $200, as a fee for professional services rendered his married daughter, Mrs. Vincent DiSalvo. The defendant admits that plaintiff rendered medical services to his daughter and does not contest the amount of the claim, but denies all legal responsibility therefor.

There was .judgment below in favor of plaintiff as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

Plaintiff’s case rests upon an alleged verbal agreement with Piazza to pay his fee. He testified that Mrs. DiSalvo was in need of an operation and that on the day she was sent to the Touro Infirmary for that purpose, defendant came to the home of his son-in-law and, in the presence of Mr. & Mrs. DiSalvo, made arrangements to pay for the hospital expenses and for his fee. Piazza and his- son-in-law, Di-Salvo, deny that this agreement was made. It appears, however, that the Touro Infirmary was paid in two installments, one by a check of Paul Piazza of $86.85 and another in cash amounting to $90.37 made by Vincent Piazza, defendant’s son. It also appears that Miss Mamie Henderson and Miss Inez Foret, special nurses who attended Mrs. DiSalvo during her illness, were paid by checks issued by Paul Piazza, *103and one of them, Miss Henderson, testified that Mrs. DiSalvo, while in the hospital, told her that her father was paying all of her expenses. DiSalvo, the record indicates, was in impecunious circumstances, and that Piazza. was comparatively affluent. Dr. Loria’s testimony, in addition to the corroboration of the witness referred to, is supported by the natural presumption that a father, under the circumstances, would be willing to assume the expenses of a necessary operation for the relief of his daughter who was very seriously ill.

In Hyman v. Vitrano, 2 La.App. 59, a very similar case was considered by this Court. In that case we said:

> “Where the father of a married woman engages a physician to treat his daughter, he is liable for the value of the physician’s services notwithstanding the legal responsibility of the daughter’s husband.” (Syllabus by the Court)

In this case, like the Hyman Case, there is only a question of fact involved, to-wit, did the father employ the doctor to treat his married daughter. Here, the question was determined by the learned judge, a quo, in the affirmative and we are of opinion that his conclusion is correct.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.