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

CertificationPursuant

To 18 U.S.C. 1350,

As AdoptedPursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald R.Cysewski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1)                                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

2)                                      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | September 21, 2007 |   | /s/ Gerald R. Cysewski              |   |
|--------|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   |               |   | Gerald R. Cysewski                  |   |
|   |               |   | Chairman of the Board of Directors, |   |
|   |               |   | President and Chief Executive       |   |
|   |               |   | Officer                             |   |

 

----
Exhibit 3

Dean Heller
Secretary of State
204 North Carson Street, Suite 1
Carson City, Nevada 88701-4299
(775)684-5708
Website:secretaryofstate.biz

Certificate of Amendment                    Filed #C91-02
(pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390          June 4, 2004
                                            In the office of Dean Heller,
                                     Secretary of State

      Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
                  for Nevada Profit Corporations

   (Pursuant to NRS 78,285 and 78.390-After issuance of Stock)

1.  Lone Moose Adventures, Inc.

2.  The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):

ARTICLE X (Added)

The Board of Directors shall have the right to change the name of the
corporation without shareholder approval to a name that reflects the industry
or business in which the corporation's business operations are conducted or to
a name that will promote or conform to any principal product, technology or
other asset of the corporation that the Board of Directors, in its sole
discretion, deems appropriate.

At the special meeting of stockholders held May 27, 2004, the stockholders
also approved a reverse split of the corporation's outstanding common stock on
the basis of .6667 shares for each one share owned; such reverse split to
become effective June 7, 2004.

3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation
entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such
greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a
vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the *
articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment: 589,500

4.  Effective date of filing (optional)

5.  Officer Signature (required):  /s/Christopher B. Glover

*If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any
relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares,
then the amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the
affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders of shares representing a
majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment
regardless of limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.
EXHIBIT 99.2



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



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K
Annual Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                     
|---------------------
|Dated: March 28, 2003
|
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.2
                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to Stock Option
Agreement/William T. War of Inland Resources Inc. of our reserve report and all
schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto, and to any reference made to us,
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Inland Resources Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                         /s/ Ryder Scott Company Petroleum
                                         Engineers

Denver, Colorado
August 7, 2000
#### Seekamp et al. *v.*Warner, Supt. of Bldg. & Loan Assns., et al.

(No. 25625

Decided December 11, 1935.)

*Mr. G. J. Mattern,*for plaintiffs in error.

*311
      *Mr. John W. Bridker,*attorney general, *Mr. Charles H. Jones*and *Mr. Herbert D. Mills,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error he, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POWER TEST INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         3,669
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                        49,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                19,477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                37,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                       31,924
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  37,848
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,878
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,694
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .75
        

</TABLE>
#### Myers, Secy. of State, *v.*The State, ex rel. The Depositors Savings *&*Loan Co.

(No. 24992

Decided June 26, 1935.)

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, *Mr. William 8. Fvatt*and *Mr. Charles H. Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. G. Crabbe, Mr. George Palda*and *Mr. George W. Ritter,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

The Depositors Savings & Loan Company of Cleveland, an association authorized and existing under the building and loan laws of Ohio, pursuant to proceedings to dissolve under Section 8623-79, General Code, presented a certificate of dissolution to the Secretary of State, who refused to file same, such refusal being based upon the ground that the Superintendent of Building and Loan Associations of Ohio had refused to give his approval. Thereupon this ac*63tion was brought in the Court of Appeals, on December 7, 1933, to obtain a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State to file such certificate of dissolution, which was allowed.

For the purpose of protecting the rights and safeguarding the interests of all concerned, broad powers have been conferred by the Legislature upon the Superintendent of Building and Loan Associations, including the authority of regulation, supervision and control of building and loan associations of this state. *State, ex rel. Bettman, Atty. Genl.,*v. *Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County,*124 Ohio St., 269, 178 N. E., 258. The decision of this court in *State, ex rel. Doan Savings & Loan Co.,*v. *Myers, Secy. of State,*128 Ohio St., 619, 193 N. E., 349, is rather decisive of the issue in this case. It was there held that Section 8623-2 must be considered in connection with Sections 9643-2 and 9643-3, General Code.

The various statutory provisions affecting such associations should be so construed and applied as to accomplish the manifest purpose of their enactment. That purpose would in a measure be thwarted if it be not required that a certificate of dissolution thereof shall have the approval of the Superintendent of Building and Loan Associations.

It not appearing, therefore, that the relator at this time has a clear legal right to the writ of mandamus prayed for, it should not be issued.

*Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.*

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

Williams and Jones, JJ., not participating.
#### Setrak K. BOYAJIAN, etc., Defendant, Appellant, v. OLD COLONY ENVELOPE COMPANY, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees.

No. 6120.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Nov. 5, 1963.

Setrak K. Boyajian pro se.

Eben M. Graves, New York City, with whom Richard G. Fuller, Jr., New York City, Donald R. Grant, Boston, Mass., Brumbaugh, Free, Graves & Donohoe, New York City, and Ropes & Gray, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellees.

Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment will be entered affirming the amended judgment below entered February 6, 1963 for the reasons given by Judge Wyzanski in his memorandum dated February 5, 1963, D.C., 223 F, Supp. 905.1

1

. For the result of prior litigation between the parties, see Old Colony Envelope Company v. Boyajian, D.C., 176 F.Supp. 627 and Boyajian v. Old Colony Envelope Company, 1 Cir., 279 F.2d 572.
EXHIBIT 32.02

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 iGATE Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Michael Zugay, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 6, 2007                                        
|                                                            
|/s/    MICHAEL ZUGAY                                        
|Michael Zugay Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
#### Frank HAMEN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 2, 1973.

Frank Hamen, pro se.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., G. Edward James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for ap-pellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court hy

Justice STEPHENSON,

Affirming.*
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Production Lift Companies, Inc. * From the County Court at 

and Wireline Services, Inc., Law No. 2 of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CC19833.

Vs. No. 11-17-00331-CV * May 31, 2019

Rafael Valdez and Kenny Ortiz, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against 

Production Lift Companies, Inc. and Wireline Services, Inc.
September 17, 1999

Cyanotech Corporation
Hawaii Ocean Science Technology Park
73-4460 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. #102
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740

Attn:    Ronald Scott
         Executive Vice President

Re:      Project Closeout Costs for the Astaxanthin Expansion Project

Kiewit Pacific Co. has measured the work on the  Astaxanthin  Expansion  Project
completed  to  date  and  found  the  contract  work to be 64  percent  complete
including  mobilization  and  demobilization  of plant  and  equipment.  This 64
percent of the  Construction  Contract  represents  $2,813,335.00.  The contract
amount paid to date is $2,475,000.00  leaving $338,335.00 due on the contract at
this time.

In the interest of  maintaining  good relations  between the  Company's,  Kiewit
Pacific  Co. and  Cyanotech  Corporation  agree that if the  current  suspension
agreement  dated June 15, 1999 expires  without a further  agreement to continue
the  suspension the contract will be closed out and all accounts will be settled
as follows:

         1.       Cyanotech Corporation to pay Kiewit Pacific Co. $170,000.00 of
                  the amount remaining due on the contract.

         2.       In the event Cyanotech Corporation chooses to proceed with the
                  project at a future date Kiewit Pacific Co. will be allowed to
                  negotiate  reasonable  escalation and remobilization costs and
                  proceed with the contract.

         3.       If the parties can not come to agreement for the completion of
                  the work  Cyanotech  Corporation may proceed with an alternate
                  contractor  after  paying  Kiewit  Pacific  Co.  the remaining
                  $168,335.00 due plus interest as allowed by the contract.

If these  provisions  are  acceptable to Cyanotech  Corporation  please sign the
document  and  return  to our  office.  As you know we prefer  to  complete  the
contract work and continue to be you contractor for future projects.

Sincerely,                                    Cyanotech Corporation
/s/ Gordon Schwiesow                          By /s/ Ronald P. Scott
    Gordon Schwiesow                          Its Executive Vice President/CFO
    Hawaii Area Manager
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

April 20, 2001

Before

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Nos. 99-4318, 99-4319, 99-4320, 99-4345

 

WILLIAM BRACY and )

ROGER COLLINS, )

) Appeal from the United States

 Petitioners-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, ) District Court for the Northern 

) District of Illinois

v. )

) Nos. 93 C 5282, 93 C 5328

JAMES SCHOMIG and )

ROGER COWAN, ) William T. Hart, Judge.

)

Respondents-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. )

O R D E R

On her own motion, Judge Rovner makes the following modification to her dissent from

the panel opinion issued on April 18, 2001: 

At page 21, footnote 4, lines 5 through 8, the following text is deleted: “ignores the

possibility that the State might be less willing to consent to a bench trial before a defense-friendly

judge, which in turn would make it more difficult for the judge to sell his services. It also”.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification PursuantTo 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald R. Cysewski, ChiefExecutive 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and             |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                  |
| 2)     |   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all  material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company. |

 

 
| Date:  |    February  13,  2004 |   | /s/  Gerald  R. Cysewski      |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                            |   | *Chairman of the Board of Directors,*   |
|   |                                            |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
KPMG

2500 Ruan Center

666 Grand Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50309

Independent Accountants' Report

 

The Board of Directors

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage:

We have examined management's assertion, dated February 25, 2003 that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002. Management is responsible for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

KPMG LLP

February 25, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6631

CLARENCE E. MCCARY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LISA EDWARDS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-1009) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence E. McCary, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Clarence E. McCary seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCary has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**CERTIFICATION**
  **PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     I, James E. Hogue, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer ofWiltex A, Inc., (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
1. the accompanying Form 10K report for the period ending December 31, 2003 asfiled with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2. the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.     By: s/s JAMES E. HOGUE  James E. Hogue Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)   Date: June 22, 2004
#### SMITH v. CONRAD.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.