alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ASA HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         133,699
<SECURITIES>                                    76,652
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (301)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               233,817
<PP&E>                                         550,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                 244,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 552,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,998
<BONDS>                                         91,528
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,992<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     324,882<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   552,011
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,415
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,798
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,867
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
<FN>
<F1> Reduced by approximately $72,310 allocable to 723,100 shares of Treasury
Stock.
<F2> Reduced by approximately $20,752,000 allocable to 723,100 shares of
Treasury Stock.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Arthur GAYLE v. H. A. REID, Tax Collector, et al.

No. 1350.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1934.

Cline, Thompson & Lawes, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

Mark C. Pickrel, Atty. for Tax Col., and Jno. J. Robira, Dist. Atty., both of Lake Charles, for appellees.

LE BLANC, Judge.

Two questions involved in this case were certified by this court to the Honorable Supreme Court of Louisiana, with a request for instructions how to decide them.

The Supreme Court assigning reasons in an opinion, 157 So. 720, copy of which is filed in the record in the case of the Southern Amusement Co., Inc., v. City of Jennings et al., No. 5013 of the docket of the Fourteenth judicial district court, in and for the parish of Jefferson Davis, and which reasons are to apply in this ease as well, answered one of the questions certified by us and found it unnecessary to answer the other, and instructed this court to render judgment affirming the judgment of the district court.

Complying with those instructions we now enter the following decree:

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.4


                            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 Inland Resources Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bill I.
Pennington, 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:


         (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/ Bill I. Pennington



Bill I. Pennington
Chief Financial Officer

February 3, 2003
23

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of total non-real-estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1991...... 105 12 25 36 32 .319 .037 .078 .103 .091

1992...... 82 14 20 29 18 .237 .039 .062 .083 .050

1993...... 54 7 16 5 26 .155 .020 .049 .014 .069

1994...... 69 10 11 15 33 .187 .026 .032 .037 .082

1995...... 51 -2 14 13 25 .131 -.004 .039 .032 .061

1996...... 95 16 27 24 30 .240 .039 .070 .058 .071

1997...... 93 6 19 19 50 .230 .014 .049 .045 .112

1998...... 87 4 15 24 45 .198 .008 .036 .051 .095

1999...... 126 18 37 35 36 .280 .040 .086 .078 .080

2000...... 108 11 17 34 45 .259 .027 .041 .075 .098

2001...... 308 67 53 140 48 .656 .142 .118 .294 .101

2002...... 221 40 50 58 73 .471 .085 .114 .124 .157

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude

foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks that

are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-105-PB

Michael Martin

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for April 7, 2009, citing the need for additional

time to complete discovery and engage in plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 7, 2009 to June 2, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00105-PB Document 13 Filed 03/24/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 25, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued to

May 27, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 24, 2009

cc: Jaye Rancourt, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00105-PB Document 13 Filed 03/24/09 Page 2 of 2
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

. ..QFFIGIALSUSINESS • m&m>w® <T >

PENALTY FOR

FRBVATEUSE

•BC

SSSffiP PITNEV BOWES .

76127

U

4/8/2015 PRIVATE USE • g| DELBOSQUE, GRISELDA Tr. Ct.cN&. flS^/St^Af0FROM ZWf2^13°61-01

The Court has dismissed your application for writ of habeas corpus without written

order; the sentence has been discharged. See ExparteHarrington, 310

S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

02 1R

0002003152 APR09 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

GRISELDA DELBOSQUE^

U'TF

iH,'lihHi,liiM,nlll'll'iiM'HM»Hiil^ii»ii,H,1i''l^li
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Otto Cardona

v. Civil No. 08-00056-JL

Insight Technology, Inc. et al

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

April 22, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

Case 1:08-cv-00056-JL Document 12 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

April 16, 2008

cc: Christopher E. Grant, Esq.

Debra Weiss Ford, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00056-JL Document 12 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2001: Q3... 28 59 13 16 75 9 38 5

 Q4... 49 39 12 29 64 7 57 3

2002: Q1... 8 32 60 16 63 21 10 3

 Q2... 58 41 2 19 68 12 49 4

 Q3... 58 33 9 34 60 6 55 4

 Q4... 48 22 30 27 56 17 46 3

2003: Q1... 52 27 20 30 52 18 53 3

 Q2... 28 50 22 19 65 16 34 5

 Q3... 28 47 25 17 70 13 31 6

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2001: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q2... 65 33 2 35 54 11 63 3

 Q3... 70 27 3 33 56 11 65 3

 Q4... 63 30 8 40 50 9 65 3

2003: Q1... 72 24 5 44 48 8 68 3

 Q2... 36 47 17 27 59 13 46 4

 Q3... 22 46 32 18 68 15 36 4

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2001: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

2003: Q1... 60 20 20 48 36 16 56 3

 Q2... 50 35 15 46 46 8 58 2

 Q3... 46 38 17 33 63 4 46 4

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**830 KA 13-00801**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JON C. MARTIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Farkas, J.), dated March 21, 2013. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq. ). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the nearly six-year delay in rendering a risk classification determination did not deny him due process and was not “ ‘so outrageously arbitrary as to constitute gross abuse of governmental authority’ ” ( People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074, lv denied 11 NY3d 710). Contrary to defendant’s related contentions, County Court did not misapply the relevant case law, and vacatur of his risk classification is not warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case ( cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560).

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.1



CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Bruce C. Edwards, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: August 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ BRUCE C. EDWARDS        
|                      |  |     |  | Bruce C. Edwards            
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer     
|                      |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
**Exhibit 32.1**

ISONICS CORPORATION

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350Principal Executive Officer

To my knowledge: the quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2006, containing financial statementsfor the period then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.
| September 14, 2006                                                           |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                         |   |
| /s/ James E.  Alexander                                                      |   |
| James E. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive  Officer |   |

 

----
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. ER08-1385-000] 

Take notice that on August 13, 2008, Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP filed a market-based rate wholesale power sales tariff in place of the market-based wholesale power sales tariff of its predecessor, Aquila, Inc. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 29, 2008.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-22615 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7400

MATTHEW ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BERNARD MACKIE; MS. GASQUE,

 Defendants – Appellees,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT 

LIVINGSTON; SERGEANT CHESTNUT; MAJOR JACKSON; LIEUTENANT 

GIBSON,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (8:15-cv-01505-GRA)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on Anderson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

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

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

July 14, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on 

August 31, 2015.* Because Anderson failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the 

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2008 Q1 survey,

region share of national

total 0.0 2.8 8.8 26.1 22.4 8.0 5.0 4.4 8.7 5.4

Sample coverage, 2008 Q1

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 0.0 8.9 4.4 18.1 33.8 23.3 11.7 9.5 6.0 8.2

Avg. loan size, 2008 Q1 survey

(thousands of dollars) 0.0 25.7 27.6 88.1 84.4 75.2 194.1 92.1 60.3 33.8

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5

Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2

Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3

Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8

Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1

Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9

Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

(0.47) (0.18) (0.40) (0.54) (0.15) (0.53) (0.13) (0.26) (0.26) (0.17)

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

(0.58) (0.16) (0.12) (0.38) (0.30) (0.28) (0.29) (0.17) (0.21) (0.21)

Q4 9.2 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.9

(0.26) (0.24) (0.53) (0.38) (0.32) (0.63) (0.17) (0.18) (0.31) (0.14)

2007: Q1 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.9 9.3 8.9

(0.38) (0.27) (0.17) (0.41) (0.28) (0.41) (0.16) (0.28) (0.18) (0.07)

Q2 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.4 8.6

(0.16) (0.19) (0.41) (0.41) (0.31) (0.50) (0.11) (0.13) (0.12) (0.32)

Q3 10.4 8.6 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.9 8.9 9.5 8.6

(0.01) (0.42) (0.15) (0.35) (0.33) (0.44) (0.26) (0.17) (0.07) (0.30)

Q4 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.3 6.8 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.9 7.6

(0.01) (0.16) (0.25) (0.55) (0.47) (0.41) (0.17) (0.23) (0.15) (0.22)

2008: Q1 7.3 7.8 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.4 7.8 7.2 7.8 6.3

(0.14) (0.28) (0.14) (0.63) (0.66) (0.67) (0.72) (0.21) (0.23) (0.10)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19
**Exhibit32.2**

** **

ISONICS CORPORATION

**Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350Principal Financial Officer**

To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended October 31, 2006, containing financial statements for the periodthen ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.
| December 15, 2006                       |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    |
| /s/ John Sakys                          |   |
| John Sakys, Chief Financial Officer and |
| Principal Financial Officer             |

 

----