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 withthe Quarterly Report of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. R. Brown,President and 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 Sections 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: August 9, 2006 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NorthPittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 21.1

GASTAR EXPLORATION LTD.

Subsidiary List  January 5, 2006

100% Subsidiaries owned of Gastar Exploration Ltd. (Alberta, Canada)

Gastar Exploration USA, Inc. (Michigan)

Gastar Exploration New South Wales, Inc. (Michigan)

Gastar Exploration Victoria, Inc. (Michigan)

Gastar Exploration Texas LP (Delaware) (1)(2)

---

|(1) | Gastar Exploration Texas LLC (Delaware), General Partner (1%)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Gastar Exploration Texas, Inc. (Michigan), Limited Partner (99%)
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 157 

To permanently increase the maximum annual contribution allowed to be 

made to Coverdell education savings accounts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To permanently increase the maximum annual contribution 

allowed to be made to Coverdell education savings accounts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘The Education Savings 

5 for Students Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION 

7 FOR COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS AC8 COUNTS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 530(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 

10 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining Coverdell eduVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:23 Jan 09, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S157.IS S157

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 157 IS

1 cation savings account) is amended by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘$5,000’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

4 4973(e)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$5,000’’. 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

8 December 31, 2006. 

9 (d) PERMANENT EXTENSION OF MODIFICATIONS.— 

10 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Rec11 onciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset provisions) shall 

12 not apply to section 401 of such Act (relating to modifica13 tions to education individual retirement accounts). 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Woody WATLEY v. STATE.

7 Div. 161.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          8
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   739
<PP&E>                                           2,531
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,634
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,272
<SALES>                                            741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   741
<CGS>                                              643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    100
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        68
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
_____________ No. 96-2542WM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Cedric L. Roulette, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: December 31, 1996 Filed: January 8, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Cedric L. Roulette appeals the sentence imposed by the distric t court. Having reviewed the record, we reject Roulette's contention that the district court im properly enhanced Roulette's sentence for possession of a firearm. We also reject Roulette's argument that the sentence impose d was vindictive. The district court's sentence was correct and furthe r discussion is not warranted. We affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

As an accompaniment to the Annual Report of MainSource Financial Group,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, James L. Saner Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

•                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

•                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods presented.

 

This certification is based on inquiries that I have made, or havecaused to be made, in a good faith effort on my part to be a responsible andcompetent chief executive officer serving the Company and its manyconstituencies.

 

This certification merely accompanies and is not part of the Report,shall not be deemed filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and may not be used for any purpose other than compliance with 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002.

 

Date: March 10, 2006.

 
| /s/ James L. Saner, Sr. |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**
I, William C. Kurtz, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluations; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date: March 18, 2005 By: /s/ William C. Kurtz           William C. Kurtz     Senior Vice President and Treasurer     (Principal Financial Officer)
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued019573F
Longron Corporation dba Time Logistics, 5415 Hilton Avenue, Temple City, CA 91780
September 18, 2008.015847NF
Straightline Logistics, Inc., One Cross Island Plaza, Ste. 203-G, Rosedale, NY 11422
August 14, 2008.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. E8-23873 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
* 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. 00-21123 Summary Calendar

DONALD RAY FRENCH

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

Defendant - Appellee

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-3235

-------------------- April 3, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Donald Ray French, Texas prisoner # 720074, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by a sanction imposed by the district court for the Northern District of Texas. French argues that the district court erred in dismissing his action as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and in imposing a $100 monetary sanction. Although the district court erred in holding that the district court for the Northern District of Texas imposed the sanction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the district court did not abuse its discretion in honoring theNo. 00-21123 -2- sanction imposed by a district court from another district. See Balawajder v. Scott , 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the district court had previously dismissed three of French’s prior civil actions for failure to obtain permission to file them as required by the sanction imposed by the district court for the Northern District of Texas, the district court did not abused its discretion in imposing a $100 monetary sanction. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). To the extent that French is challenging his burglary conviction, he must bring such claims in a habeas petition. See Cook v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t , 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent that French is seeking damages based on his allegedly unconstitutional conviction, his claim is not cognizable at this time because he has not shown that his conviction has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v, Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). AFFIRMED.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 10, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.106.c Consolidated Statement for Federal, State, and Local Governments1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Guy McEachest, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 456]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered September 14, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see *People v*Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third *424degree. Moreover, upon, the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s second *Allen*charge *(see Allen v United States,*164 US 492) was improper and resulted in a coerced verdict is unpreserved for appellate review since defense counsel did not object to it *(see People v Petty,*282 AD2d 551), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Torres,*280 AD2d 499).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Krausman and Crane, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000719961
<NAME>                        EL CHICO RESTAURANTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         216
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,500
<PP&E>                                         67,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 47,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,170
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       475
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   47,662
<SALES>                                        101,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,481
<CGS>                                          27,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (75)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,051)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,989)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,062)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.79)
        


</TABLE>
#### Austin Ray THURSBY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>          MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                      29,796,155 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>                  767,458 
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>            30,563,613 
<PP&E>                      83,146,318 
<DEPRECIATION>                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>             146,790,253 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        2,396,251 
<BONDS>                     56,588,530 
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                  72,913,188 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>146,790,253 
<SALES>                      4,900,345 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             9,408,646 
<CGS>                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                1,682,322 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               273,103 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           1,418,020 
<INCOME-PRETAX>              5,527,063 
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          5,527,063 
<DISCONTINUED>              20,826,930 
<EXTRAORDINARY>             (1,259,117)
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                25,094,876 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   143.87 
<EPS-DILUTED>                   143.87 

        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB ofEast Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Thomas D. Leitnaker, Chief Financial Officer and Controllerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ Thomas D. Leitnaker                |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Thomas D. Leitnaker                    |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Controller |
|   |   | Dated: March 29, 2007                  |

 

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-RM-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 2, 2013.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [filed July 1, 2013; docket #93] is denied without prejudice

for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1. Plaintiff’s motion actually appears to be a request

for production of documents to the Defendants, which should be submitted directly to the

Defendants, not filed with the Court. Before filing a motion to compel, the Plaintiff must have

already propounded a discovery request to the Defendants then, if denied, the Plaintiff may seek to

compel production of the requested discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 96 Filed 07/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1