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




SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION




In
      connection with the Annual Report of SPO Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Michael Braunold, 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:




(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.






MARCH
        20,
        2007
 /s/
        Michael Braunold
 Michael
        Braunold
 Chief
        Executive Officer


A
      SIGNED
      ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED
      TO
      SPO MEDICAL INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY SPO MEDICAL INC. AND FURNISHED TO
      THE
      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 21.1


<PAGE>   2


                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                            FIRST CHARTER CORPORATION

                              Affiliated Companies
                              As of March 29, 2000


         Listed below are the subsidiaries of the Company, all of which are
wholly owned and are owned directly by the Company, unless otherwise indicated.


                  First Charter National Bank
                  First Charter Brokerage Services (1)
                  First Charter Insurance Services (1)
                  First Charter Realty Investment, Inc. (1)
                  FCNB Real Estate, Inc. (2)

(1)      Owned by First Charter National Bank
(2)      Owned by First Charter Realty Investment, Inc.
*Release Date: December 31, 2004*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 6.8     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.5     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.3     | 6.2                    | 5.9                                |
| 6.2     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.1     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.3     | 6.3                    | 5.8                                |
| 6.4     | 6.3                    | 6.0                                |
| 6.6     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
||
| 7.5     | 7.4                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.2     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.0     | 6.9                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.9     | 6.8                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 7.3     | 6.8                    | 6.4                                |
||
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| 5.8     | 6.0                    | 6.2                                |
| 5.2     | 5.3                    | 5.2                                |
| 5.1     | 5.3                    | 5.6                                |
| 4.6     | 4.9                    | 5.7                                |
| 5.8     | 6.2                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.0     | 6.2                    | 6.6                                |
| 6.2     | 6.6                    | 6.8                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * 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.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54877-54878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22380]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Ragen Corp. Rainwire Partners, Inc., Rako 
Capital Corp., Ramtek Corp. (n/k/a Ramtek I Corp.), Ranger Industries, 
Inc., RCS Holdings, Inc., and Recycling Industries, Inc., Respondents.; 
Order of Suspension of Trading

September 19, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Ragen Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended June 30, 1993.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Rainwire Partners, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended March 31, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Rako Capital Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended March 31, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Ramtek Corp. (n/k/a Ramtek I Corp.) because it has not filed any 
periodic reports since April 2, 1993.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Ranger Industries, Inc. because it has not filed

[[Page 54878]]

any periodic reports since September 30, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
RCS Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
January 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Recycling Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since December 31, 1998.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on September 19, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 2, 2008.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22380 Filed 9-19-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 31 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Exchange Rule 13a-14(a),
As adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Arch B. Gilbert, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of InterWest Medical Corporation;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by the annual report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this annual report;4.
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a.
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared;b.
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the, end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the Audit Committee of the
Companys Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a.
    all deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. /s/ Arch B. Gilbert
    
    January 20, 2005Arch B. GilbertPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
March 6, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TERRY LEE BAGLEY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00264

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the ju dgment as enter ed, which is cap able of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED to reflect appellant entered a plea of true to the enhancement allegation. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,250,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,652,819
<INVENTORY>                                  5,013,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,711,570
<PP&E>                                       2,103,241
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,142,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,063,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,620,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        225
<COMMON>                                        24,540
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,417,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,063,493
<SALES>                                      3,115,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,115,197
<CGS>                                        2,487,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  826,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (20,307)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             172,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (350,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (350,602)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (350,602)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31450 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN RAMOS PEINADO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-66-ALL-C

-------------------- October 26, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Ramos Peinado on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Peinado has filed a response to counsel's motion and brief in which he asks for the appointment of new appellate counsel. Our independent review of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion forNo. 00-31450 -2- leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Peinado's request for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 07-cr-103-01-SM

Flaubert Faustin,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Faustin’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

9). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of May 2009. Defendant Faustin 

shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than January 23, 2009. 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 1:07-cr-00103-SM Document 10 Filed 01/08/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for May 8, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. 

Jury selection will take place on May 19, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 8, 2009

cc: Jorel Booker Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00103-SM Document 10 Filed 01/08/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-168-PB

Paul Ryder, et al.

O R D E R

Defendants, through respective counsel, have moved to

continue the trial scheduled for June 2, 2009, citing counsel’s

involvement in a state court trial which creates scheduling

conflict with the current trial date. 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 June 2, 2009 to August 18, 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 defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00168-PB Document 22 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 28, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued to

July 21, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. 

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 28, 2009

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Richard Monteith, Jr., Esq.

Donald Feith, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00168-PB Document 22 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Mohamed Jaffer, Respondent, v Daniel J. Goldstein, Defendant, and Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp., Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 316]

In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered October 27, 2004, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs

The defendant Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp. (hereinafter Chase) made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the evidence submitted in *657opposition to Chase’s cross motion raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra).*Cozier, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
____________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1           Q2            Q3           Q4          Total
____________________________________________________________________________________

1985......    |            12            21            17          18             68
1986......    |            14            14            21          16             65
1987......    |            22            19            12          16             69
1988......    |            11             6            12           7             36
1989......    |             5             7             5           5             22
1990......    |             3             5             6           3             17
1991......    |             2             2             3           1              8
1992......    |             1             1             1           4              7
1993......    |             1             2             2           0              5
1994......    |             0             0             0           0              0
1995......    |             0             0             0           0              0
1996......    |             0             2             0           0              2
1997......    |             0             0             0           1              1
1998......    |             0             0             1           0              1
1999......    |             0             1             0           0              1
2000......    |             0             0             0           0              0
2001......    |             0             0             0           0              0
2002......    |             1             0             0           1              2
2003......    |             0             1             0           0              1
2004......    |             0             1             0           0              1
2005......    |             0             0             0           0              0
2006......    |             0          n.a.          n.a.           0           n.a.
____________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johannes Gonzalez, Appellant.

[810 NYS2d 87]

*621Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered June 12, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Police Officer Stephen Smith’s decision to stop the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger was justified by his observation that the driver had committed a traffic infraction *(see People v Robinson,*97 NY2d 341, 351-353 [2001]; *People v Romeo,*15 AD3d 420 [2005]). At the suppression hearing, the defendant failed to carry his burden of establishing his standing to contest the search of the lawfully-stopped vehicle *(see People v Tejada,*81 NY2d 861 [1993]; *People v Ballard,*16 AD3d 697, 698 [2005]; *People v Phillips,*260 AD2d 582, 583 [1999]). In any event, his entirely unprovoked flight, leaving the vehicle and his companions and running off a highway and into the woods, constituted an abandonment of the 11-pound brick of cocaine and other narcotics found in the trunk of the car and undermined any claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy he might otherwise have had *(see People v Byrd,*304 AD2d 490 [2003]; *People v Perez,*301 AD2d 434, 435 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.