alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Cytocore, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert McCullough, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and 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, to my knowledge:




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 as of the dates presented and the results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





/s/ Robert F. McCullough, Jr.Robert F. McCullough, Jr.Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial OfficerDated:  May 16, 2011
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed September 29, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1191

Lower Tribunal Nos. F18-12351, 20-2292

________________

Fernando A. Irizarry,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. 

Rebull, Judge.

Fernando A. Irizarry, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Fernando Irizarry appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County. 

Because Irizarry is incarcerated in Desoto County and the petition raises 

issues concerning his incarceration, we affirm the trial court’s order 

dismissing the petition without prejudice to Irizarry refiling it in the proper 

venue and in the proper form. See Stokes v. State, 3 So. 3d 425, 425 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2009) (“The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is 

incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his 

incarceration.” (quoting Brinson v. State, 988 So. 2d 665, 665–66 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2008))); Cooper v. State, 970 So. 2d 368, 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); 

Johnson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  /s/  W. Kirk BrassfieldW. Kirk BrassfieldSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack M.
Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., 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 and 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 Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Jack M. Laskowitz            Date:  May 14, 2007
       -----------------------------
       Jack M. Laskowitz
       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David K. Hill, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kimball Hill, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 21,2006 
|        | /s/ DAVID K.  HILL                                            |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | David K. Hill*Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director* |

 

1

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Benjamin HEMPHILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7741.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Mark Benjamin Hemphill, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Mark Hemphill seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his “Motion to Correct and/or Reduce Sentence” pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Movants are accorded ten days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal in criminal cases. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1); *United States v. Breit,*754 F.2d 526, 528 (4th Cir.1985) (applying ten-day appeal period to Rule 35 motion).

*595The district court’s order denying Rule 35 relief was entered on the docket on October 22, 2002; the ten-day appeal period expired on November 1,2002. Under *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the earliest date we may consider Hemphill filed his notice of appeal is November 5, 2002. Because Hemphill failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of FGX
International Holdings Limited (the "Company") certifies that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 29, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 13, 2008 |  | /s/ALEC TAYLORAlec Taylor Chief Executive
Officer
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00311

- CV

T EPHNEY T RAWEEK , I NDIVIDUALLY
AND AS N EXT F RIEND OF B.A., A M INOR , Appellant

V

.

W ILLIAM R

AY L ONG , Appellee §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County ( C2018478 )

February 25 , 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was reversible error in the trial cou rt’s summar y

- j ud gment order . It is ordered that

the trial court ’ s summary

- judgment order is reversed and the case is remanded to the

trial court for further proceedings

.

It is further ordered that appell ee William Ray Long shall bear t he costs of this

a ppeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Br ian Wal ker Justice Brian Walker
216 So.2d 730

#### STATE of Alabama ex rel. H. Neil TAYLOR v. John D. JOLLY.

8 Div. 319.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 12, 1968.

*340H. Neil Taylor, Russellville, for appellant.

Tweedy & Beech, Jasper, for appellee.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an action of quo warranto filed by the State of Alabama, on the relation of Neil Taylor, and Neil Taylor individually, against John Jolly, District Attorney for the 34th Judicial Circuit of Alabama, Franklin County, Alabama.

The petition filed by appellant leaves unclear just what he contends entitles him to a writ of quo warranto, his allegations in this regard being that Jolly is usurping the office of District Attorney for Franklin County, in that either he was not a resident of Franklin County at the time of his appointment for that office by the late Governor Lurleen Wallace, or that if he were, he misrepresented facts to the Board of Registrars at the time he registered to vote in that county. However, we need not concern ourselves with what appears to be a personal grudge which Mr. Taylor harbors for Mr. Jolly.

The appellant has assigned some 23 grounds for error in his transcript. No one of these is alluded to in his brief. His brief consists of several general propositions of law, with no reference to any assignment of error raising the issue here. We have repeatedly held that where no reference is made in'brief to assignments of error made in the transcript, it is insufficient to justify our consideration of the assignments of error. Piper Ice Cream Company et al. v. Midwest Dairy Products Corporation, 279 Ala. 471, 187 So.2d 228 (1966); Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 465; State v. Southland Hatchery, 253 Ala. 449, 45 So.2d 302. In Piper Ice Cream Company v. Midwest Dairy Products Corp., supra, we said.:

> “We have frequently pointed out that a brief is insufficient which contains some general propositions of law, but which fails to make specific application to the ruling assigned as error, as the Court cannot be put to a search for error not specifically assigned and argued in brief. Schneider v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 204 Ala. 614, 87 So. 97; Suits v. Glover, supra; Shelby County v. Hatfield, 264 Ala. 488, 88 So.2d 842; Reynolds v. Henson, 275 Ala. 435, 155 So.2d 600.”

See also 2A Ala.Dig., Appeal & Error, 758(1); 758(3); 736.

The 'judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, COLEMAN, and BLOOD-WORTH, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,102,000
<SECURITIES>                                   662,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,287,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   269,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,433,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,533,000
<PP&E>                                       4,403,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,053,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,532,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,782,000
<BONDS>                                      1,346,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       907,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,267,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,532,000
<SALES>                                     12,568,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,568,000
<CGS>                                        7,024,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,024,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,115,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,580,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,580,000
<DISCONTINUED>                             (8,001,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,421,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.87)
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 288 2

_____________________________
J EFFERY W HITMAN C ARMICHAEL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. February 28, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and R OBERTS and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### De Marco et al. *v.*City of Cleveland.

(No. 23740

Decided October 13, 1932.)

*Mr. Louis Fernberg*and *Mr. Hubert J. McCaffery,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. W. George Kerr,*director of law, *Mr. Frank M. Surts*and *Mr. M. Keith Wilson,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in *648error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

Kinkade, J., not participating.
Exhibit 99.2





                            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  Quarterly   Report  on  Form  10-Q  of  nStor
Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the "Form
10-Q"), I, Thomas L. Gruber,  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 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 the
Company.



/s/ Thomas L. Gruber
----------------------------
Thomas L. Gruber
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 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.  This statement is
not deemed to be "filed" with the Securities and Exchange  Commission as part of
the report on Form 10-Q.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6652

DEMBRY V. SHABAZZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; MARIE MILLARD,

Assistant of Programs,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

ANDREW OLIVER, Chaplain,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-598-2)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dembry V. Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. Rick Randall Linker, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dembry V. Shabazz appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Shabazz v. Garraghty, No. CA-97-598-2 (E.D. Va.

Mar. 31, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID COPELAND,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 256 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of March, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                             423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,510
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    119,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,913
<PP&E>                                          87,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,663
<BONDS>                                         48,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,830
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,975
<SALES>                                        212,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               212,785
<CGS>                                          138,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,052)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        65
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,117)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,117)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.88)


</TABLE>
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

****

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

****

In connection withthe Annual Report of Peptide Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2019 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce Sellars, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 theSecurities 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. |

 

| *By:*  | */s/ Bruce Sellars*                                   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Bruce Sellars                                         |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|   | January 23, 2020                                 |   |

----