alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1






              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 CDSI Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard J. Lampen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

         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.











November 3, 2003                       /s/ RICHARD J. LAMPEN
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Richard J. Lampen
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 887 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a commemorative 

postage stamp should be issued in remembrance of the victims and 

in honor of the veterans of the peacekeeping mission in Beirut, Lebanon, 

from 1982 to 1984. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. GOODE, Mr. 

BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. COBLE, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. MCDERMOTT, and 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in 

remembrance of the victims and in honor of the veterans 

of the peacekeeping mission in Beirut, Lebanon, from 

1982 to 1984. 

Whereas on the morning of October 23, 1983, at approximately 6:20 a.m., a truck packed with explosives broke 

security and detonated outside of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon; 

Whereas 241 United States Military personnel were killed in 

the blast; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 887 IH 

Whereas a total of 273 members of the Armed Services from 

36 States across the United States were killed while serving in Beirut, Lebanon, from 1982 to 1984; 

Whereas the servicemen were part of a multinational peacekeeping force; 

Whereas the honor and sacrifice of the victims and veterans 

will never be forgotten; 

Whereas remembering those who lost their lives and those 

who served in Beirut would enhance public awareness of 

the roots of the war on terror and strengthen public resolve to rid the world of evil; 

Whereas October 23, 2008 will mark the 25th anniversary of 

the Beirut bombing; and 

Whereas the Nation should celebrate the peace in the American spirit that was embodied in the mission of these fallen heroes: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the United States Postal Service should 

4 issue a commemorative postage stamp in remem5 brance of the victims and in honor of the veterans 

6 of the Beirut peacekeeping mission; and 

7 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee 

8 should recommend to the Postmaster General that 

9 such a stamp be issued. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         803,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  700,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,095,233
<PP&E>                                         251,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,036,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          867,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        12,631
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,841,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,036,891
<SALES>                                      4,131,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,131,120
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,974,873
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,316
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                156,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            155,083
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   155,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .012
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .012
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Olympic Cascade Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark Goldwasser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and results of
               operations of the Company.



                                                      /s/ Mark Goldwasser
                                                      -------------------
                                                      Mark Goldwasser
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                                      August 12, 2003


                                       27
#### Nancy Gonzalez, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Jamaica Hospital, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 316]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated June 24, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Nancy Gonzalez and against it in the principal sum of $850,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury on comparative negligence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPLR 4110-b). In any event, the contention is without merit as there was insufficient evidence in the record to support such a charge *(see Arpino v Jovin C. Lombardo, P.C.,*215 AD2d 614 [1995]; *O'Connor v Graziosi,*131 AD2d 553 [1987]).

*653The defendant’s further contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is similarly without merit (see *Simmons v East Nassau Med. Group,*260 AD2d 463 [1999]; *Nussbaum v Gibstein,*138 AD2d 193 [1988], *revd on other grounds*73 NY2d 912 [1989]).

The jury’s award did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see *Sutch v Yarinsky,*292 AD2d 715 [2002]; *Lopez v Bautista,*287 AD2d 601 [2001]; *Motichka v Cody,*279 AD2d 310 [2001]; *King v Jordan,*265 AD2d 619 [1999]; *Baez v Dombroff,*142 AD2d 705 [1988]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see *Roseingrave v Massapequa Gen. Hosp.,*298 AD2d 377 [2002]; *Cerasuoli v Brevetti,*166 AD2d 403 [1990]). Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending November 5, 2005FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10- K, into Inland Resource Inc.'s previously filed
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-41662), Form S-8 (File No.
333-27449), Form S-8 (File No. 33-84640) and Form S-3 (File No. 33-84766).


                                             /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                             --------------------------
                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 29, 2000
#### BARTLETT v. SHORES.

No. 6873.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1945.

Robert J. Newson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Booth & Lockard, of Shreveport, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

In this case the trial Court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of Three Thousand ($3,000) Dollars, with legal interest thereon from date of judicial demand until paid, together with all costs. In spite of the fact that it is apparent on the face of the judgment of the district Court that the same exceeds the jurisdictional amount of the Court of Appeal, the defendant directed and perfected an appeal to this Court.

Motion to dismiss has been filed by plaintiff-appellee. In a memorandum brief filed by counsel for defendant-appellant it is stated that counsel directed the appeal to this Court in error, under the impression that the amount of the judgment was $2,000 rather than $3,000. For this reason, counsel requests that the appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court.

In consideration of these facts, it is ordered that this appeal be transferred to The Honorable the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana; that appellant be allowed a period of sixty (60) days, from and after the date when this decree shall become final, within which to effect the transfer and perfect his appeal to the said Supreme Court, failing which action within the period specified this appeal shall stand dismissed. Costs of this proceeding are assessed against defendant-appellant, and all other costs shall await final determination of this suit.

KENNON, J., takes no part.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 4, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1361 Lower Tribunal No. 02-21084

________________ 

### Shawnton D. Johnson, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Shawnton D. Johnson, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (The evidence claimed to be newly discovered "must have been unknown by the trial court, by the2

party, or by counsel at the time of trial and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have [ascertained those facts] by the use of diligence" such as taking the witness' testimony.).
EXHIBIT 10.89

                         MODIFICATION NUMBER THREE


  Pursuant  to  the  Production  Contract  dated  as  of February 13, 1995,
  between  Carrington  Laboratories and Oregon Freeze Dry, paragraph two of

  Article Seven (Minimum Commitments and Take or Pay Guaranty) Subsection C
  (Take  or  Pay  Guaranty:   Minimum Total Commitment) shall be amended to
  read as follows:

       In  the  event  Purchaser takes delivery of and pays for, during any
  month  of  the  term  of  this Production Contract, less than the monthly
  Minimum  Purchase  specified in Subsection C of Article Three, other than
  by  a  suspension  of  production by Purchaser pursuant to Article Eight,
  Purchaser agrees to pay Seller within normal terms an amount equal to the
  value  of  the  Product  and services  not taken and such amount shall be
  deemed  as  a pre-payment that may be applied to future orders of Product
  and  services  during  the  term of the Production Contract.  Seller will
  issue  an  invoice  each month for any portion of the $30,000 minimum not
  taken  in  Product  and  services.    Debit  memos created by Seller will
  initiate  these  invoices.   Seller will record these pre-payments on the
  balance  sheet,  and  provide its Sales Department with a monthly balance
  from  the general ledger.  When orders are placed by Purchaser which have
  been  pre-paid (that is, when a pre-payment balance exists on the general
  ledger), Seller will write these orders and price at zero to generate the
  required packing lists for Distribution.  In the event that at the end of
  the  term  of  the  Production Contract there are unapplied pre-payments,
  Seller  shall  retain  the  unapplied  pre-payments, if the Total Minimum
  Commitment  has not been met, and the amount retained shall be applied to
  the Total Minimum Commitment as if it were Product delivered and paid for
  under  the  terms  of  the  Production  Contract.    If the Total Minimum
  Commitment  has  been  met, then any unapplied payments shall be promptly
  remitted to Purchaser.

  This amendment is effective May 1, 1997.

  IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undesigned  parties  have  duly executed this
  modification to their agreement on the date last written below.

  CARRINGTON LABORATORIES, INC.                OREGON FREEZE DRY, INC.


  By:  \s\ Carlton E. Turner                   By:  \s\ Philip A. Unverzagt
  Title:   President & CEO                     Title:   Sr. V.P./CFO
  Date:    March 30, 1998                      Date:    April 16, 1998
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Rosemarie Bouman, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of First Oak BrookBancshares, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a – 15(e) and 15d – 15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annualreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered bythis annual report based on such evaluations; and  c) disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control which are reasonablylikely to affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. /S/ ROSEMARIE BOUMAN Rosemarie BoumanChief Financial OfficerMarch 8, 2004
#### Frost Line Refrigeration, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein, LLP, et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 436]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated February 25, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as time-barred and denied, as academic, their cross motion to amend the caption and to preclude the defendants from asserting the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss this legal malpractice action, commenced on October 22, 2004, as time-barred. The three-year statute of limitations began to run on September 10, 2001, when the plaintiff Arthur Best signed a consent to change attorney form, relieving the defendant Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein, LLP, as counsel in the *533underlying action *(see*CPLR 214 [6]; *Sommers v Cohen,*14 AD3d 691 [2005]; *Marro v Handwerker, Marchelos & Gayner,*1 AD3d 488 [2003]; *Daniels v Lebit,*299 AD2d 310 [2002]; *Wester v Sussman,*287 AD2d 618 [2001]).

The plaintiffs’ contention that the legal malpractice cause of action did not accrue until the underlying action was dismissed on March 11, 2004, is without merit.

In light of our determination it is unnecessary to address the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                 ------------

               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 Annual Report of Carrington Laboratories,  Inc.
 (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005  as
 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the "Report"),  I Robert
 W. Schnitzius, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, 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 the
 Company.


 Date:     March 30, 2006



 /s/ Robert W. Schnitzius
 ------------------------
 Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pinemua Needham SOLIAI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10291.

D.C. No. 01-00349 SOM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 13, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pinemua Needham Soliai appeals the district court’s sentencing order, alleging that the district court erroneously determined that he had a base sentencing level of 32 rather than a base level of 26. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In contrast to Soliai’s assertion, the district never stated during the plea colloquy that it would base Soliai’s sentence on the overall weight of the mixture rather than on the weight of methamphetamine (actual) within the mixture. At the colloquy, the district court stated merely that it interpreted the indictment as charging possession of a methamphetamine mixture under § 841(b)(1)(B) instead of charging *350possession of methamphetamine (actual) under § 841(b)(1)(A). The district court’s purpose in identifying the appropriate charge at the colloquy was to determine the relevant statutory minimum sentence, which is ten years for § 841(b)(1)(A) but only five years for § 841(b)(1)(B), not to establish any parameters for determining Soliai’s base guideline level.

We also reject Soliai’s argument that his base guideline level must be determined according to the overall weight of the mixture. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Note (B); *United States v. Bressette,*947 F.2d 1361, 1362 (9th Cir.1991). Thus, the district court did not err in determining Soliai’s base offense level according to the weight of methamphetamine (actual) rather than the weight of the mixture.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey C. O’Neil

v. Case No. 09-cv-06-SM

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, Superintendent, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated March 18, 2009, no objection having been filed, for the reasons set

forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

April 29, 2009 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Jeffrey C. O’Neil, pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00006-SM Document 7 Filed 04/29/09 Page 1 of 1