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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report ofPhotonic Products Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Daniel Lehrfeld, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidatedfinancial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidatedresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

 
| Dated: April 7, 2005 |                     |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                 |                     |
|                 | /s/ Daniel  Lehrfeld     |   |
|                 | Daniel  Lehrfeld         |
|                 | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

This certification has been furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

----
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20245 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

DUNCAN BURTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-303-9

July 9, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Duncan Burton appeals from the district court’s order revoking

his pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). After

reviewing the record, we have determined that the district court’s

order revoking pretrial release is supported by the proceedingsbelow and the factual basis of the decision is not clearly

erroneous. S ee United States v. Aron
, 904 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir.

1990). We therefore affirm the order revoking pretrial release.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION
BY 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 Annual Report of Isramco, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, I, Haim Tsuff, 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
Company's 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.





MARCH
20,
2009
  /s/
HAIM
TSUFF
 HAIM
TSUFF
 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 (PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER)








A SIGNED
ORIGINAL OF THIS STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ISRAMCO,
INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY ISRAMCO, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02391-RPM

MARVIN J. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on October 26, 2011, at 10:30 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on October 20, 2011.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: September 15th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge
#### Joseph A. MELANCON v. TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. et al.

No. 2672.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1944.

Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thibodaux, and A. Deutsche O’Neal, of Houma, for appellant.

Harry McCall, of New Orleans, and El-lender & Wright, of Houma, for appellees.

OTT, Judge.

The plaintiff in this suit claims damages in the sum of $3,690.68 for personal injuries, loss of time and medical expenses caused from the same crossing accident as was involved in the two suits of Mrs. Pauline Fulmer Wright v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., La.App., 19 So.2d 894, and Mrs. Erita Lee Bryant v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., La.App., 19 So.2d 894. The plaintiff in the present suit did not join Earl Hudson as a defendant, but in all other respects the issues are the same as in the other two suits.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Mrs. Pauline Fulmer Wright v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. et al., supra, it is ordered that the judgment herein appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed at the cost of plaintiff.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Reportor “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date: August 16, 2004 |                                                     |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   /s/ Dennis R. Jolicoeur                      |   |
|                       |   Dennis R. Jolicoeur                          |
|                       |   Chief Financial Officer and Executive        |
|                       |   Vice President (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
#### CARLE v. CARLE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### Glaze *v.*Warner Elevator Manufacturing Co.

(No. 25161

Decided February 20, 1935.)

*Messrs. Chamberlain & Royan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Thompson, Mine é Flory,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and tbe same hereby is, dismissed for tbe reason no constitutional question was presented to or passed upon by tbe Court of Appeals.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
1

 A copy of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District

of Colorado may be found at: http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/LocalRules/Rules.aspx.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM

BRANDON BAKER, Rev.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF COLORADO, and

JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Combined With Response to Defendant’s Motions [Docket No. 30; Filed December 19,

2011] (the “Motion”). As an initial matter, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1.C., “[a] motion

shall not be included in a response or reply to the original motion. A motion shall be made

in a separate paper.”1

 Plaintiff’s Motion impermissibly combines his own request for

summary judgment along with his responses to Defendants’ Motion for Default Judgment

[#25] and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [#26]. See Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d

1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating that pro se litigants must follow the same procedural

rules that govern other litigants). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: December 21, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM Document 33 Filed 12/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
815 A.2d 475

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-MOVANT, v. MICHAEL BANKO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

January 30, 2003.

ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal is granted; and it is further

*427ORDERED that the motion for summary disposition is granted. The matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division to consider the appeal on the merits. See *State v.*Petties, 139 *N.J.*310, 654 A.2d 979 (1995).
First Amendment to EarthLink Partner Agreement dated January 6, 2004



 EXHIBIT 10.32 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EARTHLINK PARTNER AGREEMENT 
  
 The First Amendment to EarthLink Partner Agreement is made this 6th day of January, 2004 to the EarthLink Partner Agreement
(as amended, the “Agreement”) dated March 20, 2003, by and between EarthLink, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Callwave, Inc., a California corporation. All capitalized terms defined in the Agreement and used herein shall have the same
defined meanings in this First Amendment. 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties
wish to change the definition of an “Active Subscriber”. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreement herein, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	 	Section 1(a) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

  
 “Active Subscriber” means [*] 
  

	2.	 	Except as specifically provided herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this as of the day and year
first set forth above. 
  
  

									
	EarthLink, Inc.	 	 	 	 COMPANY NAME

					
	By:	 	 /s/    Michael C. Lunsford         

	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/    Jason Spievak         


	 Name:
	 	 Michael C. Lunsford

	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Jason Spievak


	 Title:
	 	 EVP Products

	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 CFO



  

	[*]	 	Confidential treatment has been requested for the bracketed portions. The confidential redacted portion has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

K-BEECH, INC.,

 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW

 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE OF JOHN DOE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, Plaintiff hereby voluntary dismisses Defendant, John Doe 

from this action with prejudice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Defendant, John Doe 

has neither answered Plaintiff’s Complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.

Contemporaneously, Plaintiff herewith consents to the Court having this case closed for 

administrative purposes.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Jason Kotzker

Jason Kotzker 

jason@klgip.com

KOTZKER LAW GROUP

10268 Royal Eagle Street

Highlands Ranch, CO 80129

Phone: 303-875-5386

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 47 Filed 03/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 30th, 2012 I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and that service was perfected on all interested parties 

through this system.

By: /s/Jason Kotzker

Jason Kotzker 

Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 47 Filed 03/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DCB Financial Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: August 16, 2010
    /s/ David FolkweinDavid FolkweinTitle:
    Interim President and Chief Executive
Officer  34
#### ANGELO CORTESE AND MARY CORTESE, PROSECUTORS, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SUMMIT, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 7, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

*456Before Justices Donges, Colie and Eastwood.

For the prosecutors, *Jacob B. Mantel.*

For the defendant, *Peter G. Triolo (Fred A.*Lorentz, of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

The prosecutors were allowed a writ of *certiorari*to attack the zoning ordinance of the City of Summit and the denial by the Board of Adjustment of an application for a variance so as to permit the use of prosecutors’ premises at 302 Springfield Avenue, Summit, for business purposes.

The state of case does not contain the ordinance nor do the prosecutors argue the invalidity of the ordinance in their brief. That point is therefore deemed abandoned and the sole question is whether the denial of a variance was proper.

The property of the prosecutors is a two and a half story frame dwelling located at the southeast corner of Springfield Avenue and Irving Place, Summit, New Jersey. Springfield Avenue is the main business street of the city and is zoned for business from the westerly border of the municipality up to a point within eighty-five feet of the premises in question, measured along the southerly line of Springfield Avenue. To the east of the premises in question, both sides of Springfield Avenue are within a zone in which business is prohibited. There is no question but that many and varied businesses are carried on within but a few hundredths of feet to the west of 302 Springfield Avenue but excepting for one non-conforming use antedating the enactment of the zoning ordinance, Springfield Avenue to the east is entirely residential. There was testimony adduced before the Board of Adjustment pointing toward the fact that there was no available space in the areas zoned for business and that unless the requested variance was granted, prosecutors would be unable to continue in the tailoring -business which they had carried on in Summit for many years. On this phase the evidence was unconvincing and there *457was no showing of any real effort to find a location within the business zone where prosecutors could carry on the tailoring business. The prosecutors have not established a case of unnecessary hardship and without the presence of that factor, the Board of Adjustment may not grant an application for a variance. *Scaduto*v. Bloomfield, 127 *N. J. L.*1.

The writ is dismissed, with costs.
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00380-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ERNESTO RAYMOND GONZALES,

Defendant.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#11) on October 12, 2011, by Defendant. The Court construes this Notice as a motion to

change his plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’ plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for November 16, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. and a

Sentencing hearing is set for February 6, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for November 18, 2011, and the
November 21, 2011, trial date are VACATED.

Dated this 13th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32

|   | (1) | To      my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                         |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ John      D. Thomas |
| John      D. Thomas          |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
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 National Healthcare Technology,  Inc.
on Form  10-QSB/A  for the period  from  January 27,  2005  (Inception)  through
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  each of the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on
the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
the best of his 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 operation of the Company.



/s/ ROSS LYNDON-JAMES                         /s/ BRIAN HARCOURT
-------------------------------               -------------------------------
Name: Ross Lyndon-James                       Name: Brian Harcourt
Title: Chief Executive Officer                Title: Chief Financial Officer
Dated:  June 8, 2006                          Dated:  June 8, 2006
================================================================================


                                                                    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 Annual Report of Dynatronics Corporation on Form
10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kelvyn H. Cullimore, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Terry M. Atkinson, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the
Company.



                                 /s/ Kelvyn H. Cullimore, Jr.
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Kelvyn H. Cullimore, Jr.
                               Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                               Dynatronics Corporation



                                 /s/ Terry M. Atkinson
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Terry M. Atkinson, CPA
                               Chief Financial Officer
                               Dynatronics Corporation



The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.






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