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

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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Richard Patton, President, Chief Executive Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of
my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund,
LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ G. Richard Patton                          
|G. Richard Patton                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|May 5, 2006                                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania
Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-21-01-SM

Kim Farrell

O R D E R

Defendant Farrell’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 10). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007

trial period. Defendant Farrell shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than May 4, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, this continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: June 27, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: July 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00021-SM Document 11 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 26, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq. 

Robert Veiga, AUSA 

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00021-SM Document 11 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kenneth P. Saalfrank

v. Civil No. 08-cv-46-JL

Town of Alton, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

All future discovery disputes will be handled by the

undersigned judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge, in the

normal course. No motion to compel is necessary. The party or

counsel seeking discovery-related relief should confer with

adverse counsel to choose mutually available dates, and then

contact the Deputy Clerk to schedule a conference call with the

court. The court will inform counsel and parties what written

materials, if any, should be submitted in advance of the

conference call.

Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by

the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible. If counsel

prefer traditional discovery litigation to the conference call

procedure set forth above, any such motion to compel should

expressly request, in the title of the motion, a referral to the

United States Magistrate Judge. Such referral requests will

normally be granted.

Case 1:08-cv-00046-JL Document 101 Filed 10/27/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: October 27, 2009

cc: Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq.

Robert S. Carey, Esq.

Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

K. Joshua Scott, Esq.

William G. Scott, Esq.

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Tara A. Latour, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00046-JL Document 101 Filed 10/27/09 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
Report), the undersigned, Michael W. Levin, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Denise Hawkins, as Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)    the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange
           Act of 1934; and

(2)    the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial
           condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael W. Levin 
Michael W. Levin
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  February 12, 2004

/s/ Denise Hawkins 
Denise Hawkins
Vice President and Controller
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date:  February 12, 2004

This certification
accompanies each Report pursuant to § 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 the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ISSUER'S
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         268,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               268,528
<PP&E>                                          18,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          430,166
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,295
<OTHER-SE>                                   (157,524)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   275,937
<SALES>                                        170,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  223,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,076
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,076
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,076
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-89-02-PB

Jorge Baez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for January 6, 2009, citing the need for

additional time to complete plea negotiations or prepare for

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

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from January 6, 2009 to March 3, 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-00089-PB Document 41 Filed 12/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 22, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to February 18, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 22, 2008

cc: Richard Hubbard, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00089-PB Document 41 Filed 12/22/08 Page 2 of 2
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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before October 24, 2008 to be assured of consideration. 

*Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)*

*OMB Number:*                         1506-0015.                     

*Type of Review:*                         Extension.                     

*Title:*                         Suspicious Activity Report by Money Services Business.                     

*Form:*                         FinCEN 109.                     

*Description:*                         Regulations under 31 CFR 103.20 require Money Services Business's to report suspicious                               ( print page 55203)                            transactions to the Department of the Treasury.                     

*Respondents:*                         Individuals or household.                     

*Estimated Total Reporting Burden:*                         878,400 hours.                     

*Clearance Officer:*                         Russell Stephenson (202) 354-6012, Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183.                     

*OMB Reviewer:*                         Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                     

Robert Dahl, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

 [FR Doc. E8-22321 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                         TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                  COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended                Six Months Ended
                                                ----------------------------      ---------------------------
                                                 June 30,          June 30,        June 30,        June 30,
                                                   1997              1996           1997             1996
                                                ----------        ----------      ----------       ----------
<S>                                             <C>               <C>             <C>              <C>       
Pro Forma Net income                            $  975,749        $  412,766      $1,658,264       $  532,551


                                                           PRIMARY PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average shares
    outstanding                                  9,283,078         6,783,078       9,014,612        6,783,078
  Dilutive effect of shares
    under employee stock plans                     593,728           185,634         581,794          185,634
Common and common
  equivalent shares                              9,876,806         6,968,712       9,596,406        6,968,712
Primary pro forma net
            income per share                         $0.10             $0.06           $0.17            $0.08


                                                        FULLY-DILUTED PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average shares
    outstanding                                  9,283,078         6,783,078       9,014,612        6,783,078
  Dilutive effect of shares
    under employee stock plans                     600,316           185,634         601,612          185,634
Common and common
  equivalent shares                              9,883,394         6,968,712       9,616,224        6,968,712
Fully-diluted pro forma net
            income per share                         $0.10             $0.06           $0.17            $0.08
</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6866** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v.
IAN ANDRE PERSAUD , a/k/a Baby Face Persaud, a/k/a Mark Persaud , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the U nited States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:01

- cr - 00036

- RLV

- 7 )

Submitted : March 9, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circ ui t Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ian Andre Persaud, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Ian Andre Persaud appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return of his property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). Our review is for an abuse of discretion.
Peloro v. United States , 488 F.3d 163 , 173 (3d Cir. 2007 ). A
district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins , 523 F.3d 318, 323
(4th Cir. 2008) (citing James v. Jacobson

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Persaud’s motion because it was filed in the wrong district. Rule 41(g) requires that the motion be filed “in the district where the property was seized.” Here, the p roperty was seized in the Greensboro area, which lies
within the Middle District of North Carolina. The district court therefore properly denied the motion and correctly advised Persaud to pursue his request in the Middle District of North
Carolina or thr ough the state judicial system. , 6 F.3d 233, 239
(4th Cir. 1993)).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid t he decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,011
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,160
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                429
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             63,347
<PP&E>                                           1,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,248
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,000
<PAYABLES>                                     130,690
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                 359
<LONG-TERM>                                       1760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,248
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                4,580
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             2,079
<COMMISSIONS>                                   12,650
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                      792
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,534
<COMPENSATION>                                  14,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,254
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,254
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,219
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53


</TABLE>
#### Amos JACKSON et al. v. John E. PERKINS.

No. 3584.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 14, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18,1952.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Feb. 16, 1953.

Huckabay, Seale, Kelton & Hayes, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

F. Louis Gonzales, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellees.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This case, together with the case entitled W. B. Brown et al. versus John E. Perkins, arose out of the same factual situation and were similar causes of actions. The lower court consolidated the matters for purposes of trial, however, separate judgments were rendered below. In each instance the lower court gave judgment for petitioners, and the defendant has appealed in both suits.

For the reasons this day assigned in the matter entitled Brown v. Perkins, La.App., 61 So.2d 567, the judgment of the lower court is annulled, avoided and reversed and plaintiffs’ suit dismissed at their costs.

Judgment reversed.
Case 1:06-cv-00324-SM   Document 36   Filed 05/14/09   Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
3RD QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                                3,708
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        69,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                          2,025
<INVENTORY>                                         232,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    309,245
<PP&E>                                               79,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                       24,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      411,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               259,761
<BONDS>                                              30,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                132
<OTHER-SE>                                          111,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        411,237
<SALES>                                             523,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    523,275
<CGS>                                               427,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       427,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     71,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   10,724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      14,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                          5,705
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   8,311
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          8,285
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.63



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-129-01-SM

Anthony Rabbia

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 10) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2009 trial period. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than December 1, 2008. On the

filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00129-SM Document 11 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: February 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM 

Jury Selection: February 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

November 18, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

 Kenneth Perkes, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00129-SM Document 11 Filed 11/18/08 Page 2 of 2