alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.1**

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

In connection with the annual report of PhotonicProducts Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Daniel Lehrfeld, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of theCompany as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of theCompany for the periods presented.

Dated:
|        | /s/ Daniel Lehrfeld     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Daniel Lehrfeld         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

This certification has been furnished solely pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Sections 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DURWOOD, INC., AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          22,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,142
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,104
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,142
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,731)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### JORDAN-JEMISON, Inc. v. ALMBERG.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
================================================================================

                                                                    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/A 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.
                               --------------------------------------------
  Date: August 26, 2009        Kelvyn H. Cullimore, Jr.
                               Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                               Dynatronics Corporation



                                 /s/ Terry M. Atkinson
                               --------------------------------------------
 Date: August 26, 2009         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.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of Sharon Lynch-Taureck, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

December 24,1990

*334APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus*for petitioner.

*Sharon Lynch-Taureck,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent has submitted an affidavit dated May 9, 1990, wherein she tenders her resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law (22 NYCRR 691.9).

The respondent acknowledges in her affidavit that she has been charged, *inter alia,*with three separate allegations of converting clients’ moneys totaling more than $38,000, commingling clients’ funds with personal funds, failing to maintain records of clients’ funds entrusted to her, failing to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee, failing to submit an affidavit of compliance with this court’s order of suspension, and failing to communicate with clients.

The respondent has indicated that she could not successfully defend herself on the merits against the charges outlined above, that her resignation is freely and voluntarily tendered, that she has not been subjected to coercion or duress, and that she is fully aware of the implications of submitting her resignation.

Under the circumstances herein, the resignation of the respondent as a member of the Bar is accepted and directed to be filed. The respondent is disbarred and it is directed that her name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective forthwith.

Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the resignation of Sharon Lynch-Taureck is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, Sharon Lynch-Taureck is disbarred and her name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that Sharon Lynch-Taureck shall continue to comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, Sharon Lynch-Taureck is commanded to con*335tinue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02104-REB-CBS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Joint Motion For Entry of Consent Decree and

For Dismissal With Prejudice Subject To Entry of Consent Decree [#21]1

 filed May

24, 2012. After reviewing the motion and the file, I have concluded that the motion

should be granted, that a consent decree should be entered and that this action should

be dismissed with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Joint Motion For Entry of Consent Decree and For Dismissal

With Prejudice Subject To Entry of Consent Decree [#21] filed May 24, 2012, is

GRANTED;

2. That a consent decree shall be entered separately from this order;

3. That the Trial Preparation Conference set to commence September 28, 2012,

1 “[#21]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 24 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
is VACATED;

4. That the jury trial set to commence October 15, 2012, is VACATED; and

5. That subject to the terms of the Consent Decree, this action is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated May 30, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

2

Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 24 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20728

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE PEREZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-157-ALL

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

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Perez-Lopez (“Perez”) appeals his conviction for

illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, a

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court

should have suppressed evidence of his prior administrative

deportation because he was deprived of due process during that 8

U.S.C. § 1228 administrative deportation proceeding. Perez also

contends that he need not establish actual prejudice in order to

collaterally attack his prior deportation.
No. 01-20728

-2-

Perez concedes that his appeal is foreclosed by this court’s

decision in United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d 651,

657-60 (5th Cir. 1999), but he seeks to preserve his arguments

for Supreme Court review. Perez’s conviction is therefore

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Gambichler, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 310]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered June 16, 2004, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

*723The defendant’s contention that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in resentencing him on the violation of probation without obtaining an updated presentence report is not preserved for appellate review because it was not raised before the County Court *(see People v Freeman,*2 AD3d 648, 649 [2003]; *People v Segar,*295 AD2d 628, 629 [2002]; *People v Pierre-Paul,*289 AD2d 262 [2001]; *People v Viruet,*288 AD2d 407 [2001]). Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Luciano, Fisher and Covello, 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 Heritage Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission,
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company do each hereby certify, 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 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.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 28, 2011 |  | /s/ John O. Guthrie    
|                     |  | John O. Guthrie,       
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer



81
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 30, 2014

Order 

Clerk

January 30, 2014

147187(43)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 147187

v COA: 312242

Wayne CC: 11-001972-FH

RYAN CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

to file its brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief submitted on January 17, 2014, is 

accepted for filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Partnership's audited financial
statements for the 9 months ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         3,764
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    524
<ALLOWANCES>                                       1
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,469
<PP&E>                                        56,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                52,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            762
<BONDS>                                       11,432
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                    39,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  52,300
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,411
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 103
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  27
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.43)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31

Certification



I, R. Herbert Hampton, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation;



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 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.  The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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) 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this 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; and



c) 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.  The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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:



a) All significant 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; and



b) 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.





April 29, 2004



/s/ R. Herbert Hampton



R. Herbert Hampton

President, C.E.O. and Treasurer

(as both principal executive officer and principal financial officer)
#### In the Matter of Mohawk Valley Ambulance Corps, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Department of Health et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously annulled on the law with costs and petition granted. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner, Mohawk Valley Ambulance Corps, challenges respondent’s determination that it violated subdivision (1) of section 3010 of the Public Health Law on numerous occasions by operating an ambulance service outside its usual territory as specified in its registration.

The Commissioner’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Section 3010 of the Public Health Law is merely a control measure which enables, the appropriate regional services council to be aware of the various emergency medical units within the region so *969that it may perform its responsibility of coordinating emergency medical services more efficiently (1982 Opns St Comp No. 82-185, at 238). The section does not limit the ambulance service solely to the area specified in the statement of registration. The use of the adjective "usual” to modify the phrase "territory” makes it clear that the legislative intent was otherwise. (Public Health Law § 3010 [1].) Additionally, respondent’s reliance on Department of Health Memorandum 85-31 is misplaced. The memorandum, titled an enforcement guideline, restricted the operation of ambulance services, with limited exceptions not relevant here, to the territory specified in the certificate of registration. However, the Department, by defining the territory in which the ambulance service can operate, was performing a legislative or quasi-legislative function and was required to promulgate and file a rule with the Department of State *(see,*NY Const, art IV, §8; *Matter of Roman Catholic Diocese v New York State Dept. of Health,*66 NY2d 948). This it did not do. Under the circumstances, neither section 3010 of the Public Health Law nor Department of Health Memorandum 85-31 can serve as a basis for the Commissioner’s determination. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, O’Donnell, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM

STEPHEN T. HATCH, derivatively, on behalf of Zynex, Inc., formerly known as Zynex

Medical Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS SANDGAARD,

FRITZ G. ALLISON,

TAYLOR SIMONTON,

MARY BETH VITALE, and

Defendants,

ZYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation,

Nominal Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Taylor Simonton (“Simonton”) and

Mary Beth Vitale’s (“Vitale”) Motion for Order Requiring Security [Docket No. 17; Filed

October 10, 2011] (the “Motion”). Defendants Simonton and Vitale have failed to comply

with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which provides as follows: 

The Court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before

filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to

confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.

The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the

motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.

The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#17] is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: October 11, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM Document 21 Filed 10/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1