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

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that, to his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2010 (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. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed
as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to
be executed this 13th day of April, 2010.



/s/ David M. KirkName: David M. KirkTitle: Chief Executive Officer and President


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
585 A.2d 401

#### VALERIE SEXTON AND FRANK SEXTON v. NEW JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 409

#### ALVAH VAN ORDEN HOWARD v. JOSEPH DIOLOSA AND NANUET NATIONAL BANK.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*222, 574 A.2d 995)
Exhibit 99.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

                                       OF

               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, C.E. RICK STRATTAN, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CTD HOLDINGS, INC.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the  registrant  and have: a) designed
such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrant's  disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation  Date");  and
c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation  Date;  5. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit  committee of registrant's  board of directors (or persons  performing
the equivalent  functions):  a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or
operation of internal  controls which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's
ability  to  record,  process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data and have
identified  for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in internal
controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this  quarterly  report  whether there were  significant  changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 19, 2004


/s/ C.E. RICK STRATTAN
----------------------
C.E. RICK STRATTAN
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John W. McRoberts, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of the registrant, MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc.; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: April 29, 2019 |   | By:    | /s/ John W. McRoberts |
|----------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|                 |   |   | John W. McRoberts          |
|                 |   |   | Chief Executive Officer    |
#### Bolze v. Bolze

*Theresa Barrett Male,*for plaintiff.

*P. Richard Wagner,*for defendant Thomas E. Bolze.

*Michael D. Reed,*for defendants Ronald P. Bolze and Ruth O. Bolze.

October 15, 1992

REHKAMP, *J.,*

This court adopts the reasoning as stated in the defendants’ brief in support of preliminary objections for the proposition that the joinder of Ronald P. Bolze and Ruth O. Bolze as defendants *227in this divorce action is improper under the allegations stated in the complaint.

The plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the parties were married on October 18,1987, and that the parties currently reside at different addresses. Sometime in the recent past they separated but lived together in the marital residence owned by the parents of the defendant husband. Plaintiff alleges that during the marriage she invested $15,000 of her premarital funds into improvements to the marital residence which have significantly increased the value of the marital residence. In addition, plaintiff alleges that she expended personal time and effort in further improving the marital residence.

Assuming that the parties lived in their marital residence which was a second house on a farm owned by the husband’s parents during the course of the marriage until recently or approximately five years, there is not a sufficient basis alleged that such an investment of money and time on the part of plaintiff wife would entitle her to any claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff, in her brief, denies any claim for a resulting trust which was required in the cases recited in both briefs, being *Van Buskirk*v. *Van Buskirk,*527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 4 (1991); *Wolf*v. *Wolf,*356 Pa. Super. 365, 514 A.2d 901 (1986). In both cases although title was held by the parents of either spouse, the spouses had, in fact, paid either a mortgage payment based upon an agreed price for the purchase of said home or deed had been signed and not recorded, all indicating an intent to transfer title.

Absent any indication in this case of an intent to transfer title between the husband and wife and husband’s parents, *228the parents’ property is not subject to an equitable distribution claim by wife based solely on the fact that it was the marital residence for a period of time as tenants at will without any payment of rent, taxes, insurance, etc.

For the above reasons, the preliminary objections shall be sustained by the court.

ORDER

And now, October 15, 1992, upon consideration of the preliminary objections, answer thereto, and briefs filed by both parties, the defendants’ preliminary objections are hereby granted and defendants, Ronald P. Bolze and Ruth O. Bolze, are hereby dismissed as parties to this divorce action.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SPECIAL COUNSEL, )

Petitioner, )

v. ) Docket No. HQ12068410017

JEANETTE EVANS-HAMILTON, ) Date: 1 fi .DEC

Respondent. )

FINAL ORDER

Special Counsel charged respondent with commission of two

personnel practices prohibited by section 2302(b) of the Civil

Service Reform Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)). The parties

moved jointly for approval of a settlement agreement. For

purposes of settlement respondent admits she violated section

2302(b)(5) by influencing an applicant to withdraw from

competition for a position to improve the prospects of another

person. She agrees to forego a hearing. Special Counsel agrees

to dismiss the second charge with prejudice upon acceptance of

the settlement. The parties agree that a 30-day suspension

without pay is an appropriate discipline.

The presiding administrative law judge recommends that the

Board accept the agreement, grant the joint motion, and enter a

final order consistent with its provisions. The Board approves
the settlement, grants the joint motion for settlement, and

imposes a 30-day suspension without pay.V

Accordingly, the Board DIRECTS the respondent's

employing agency to suspend respondent for a period of 30 days

without pay. Within 60 days from the date of this order, the

Special Counsel shall report to the Board on compliance with this

order.

SO ORDERED.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington y Actln , D . C . / n

S Clerk of the Board

_/ The Board notes that the agreement is made a part of the

record and is thus enforceable as between the parties. See, e.

g., John W. King, 3 MSPB 28 (1980), and other cases in which the

Board approves settlements between an employer and employee in

adverse action proceedings initiated by the employing agency.

In this disciplinary action brought by the Special Cousel the

employing agency, however, is not a party to the agreement.

Therefore, the Board must exercise its penalty authority to

direct the agency to effect the penalty that the Board has

approved. See Special Counsel v. Verrot, MSPB Docket No.

HQ12068310014 (Nov. 11, 1983).

The Board also notes that this case charges a violation of

the Civil Service Reform Act. The penalty is therefore governed

by the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 1207(b). The Board's order in

Special Counsel, v. Zanjan^, MSPB Docket No. HQ12068310023 (May

30, 1984 (Remand Order), referred to by the presiding

administrative law judge,is not relevant to the exercise of the

Board's penalty authority in this case. The Zanjani proceeding

charged a violation of the the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. § 7324), not

the Civil Service Reform Act. Any penalty authority exercised by

the Board in a proceeding charging a violation of section 7324

must comply with the penalty provisions of the Hatch Act (5

U.S.C. § 7325). See Special Counsel v. Dukes, 8 MSPB 218 (1981)

and Special Counsel vt Morgan, ML>PB Docket No. HQ12068210028 (Oct.

26, 1983~T
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1459 CA 12-00265**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CATHERINE H., DAUGHTER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND/OR PROPERTY OF DOLORES H., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE INCAPACITATED.

---------------------------------------- SUSAN H., APPELLANT.

SUSAN H., APPELLANT PRO SE.
CHRIS T. BRUNEA, BOWMANSVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered April 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The order, among other things, granted the cross motion of Catherine H. for referral of all accounting issues to Surrogate’s Court, Erie County.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

                                                                         Exhibit 32

                                           **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 Frontier  Airlines,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned as the Company's  principal  executive
officer and principal  financial officer certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant toss.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.

Date:   February 8, 2005

By:  /s/ Jeff  S. Potter
   Jeff S. Potter
   President and Chief Executive Officer

By: /s/ Paul H. Tate
   Paul H. Tate
   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```
#### Albert A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18159.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 19, 1964.

Decided April 23, 1964.

Petition for Rehearing en Banc Denied June 25, 1964.

Mr. John F. Mahoney, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.

Mr. B. Michael Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Joseph A. Lowther, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Burger, Wright and McGowAN Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

On Consideration Whereof, it is or-dered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this case is hereby affirmed.

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge ’

(concurring). v

The defendant was charged in six count arising out two salf of lhe^in' The first three counts related to the first sale and charged violations of 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a), 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a), and 21 u-s-c- § 1741 the last three counts charged the same with reference to the second sale. Both sales were made the same day, to the same purchaser, in the same location. The judge imposed the following sentence:

> “Five (5) years on count one; One (1) year to Three (3) years on count two, to run consecutively to the sentenee imposed on count one; Five (5) years on count three; Five (5) years on count four; One (1) year to Three (3) years on count five; Five (5) years on count six, said sentences imposed on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6, to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2.”

It that the sentences on all counts are to run concurrently, except the gentence on count 2 £ to ruPn consecutively with the sentence on count 1. Thus we have before us the issue of consecutive sentences imposed under different statutes for the same narcotic transaction. This same issue was before this court in Gore v. United States, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 244 F.2d 763 (1957), *affirmed,*357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958) (Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas and Brennan dissenting). See also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Harris v. United States, 359 U.S. 19, 79 S. Ct. 560, 3 L.Ed.2d 597 (1959). I agree with the observation of Judges Bazelon and Fahy, concurring in *Gore,*that the imposition of cumulative sentences for different facets of the same transaction raises serious problems. 100 U.S.App. *309D.C. at 318, 244 F.2d at 766, and see cases cited therein. I agree as well with the views expressed in the dissenting ■opinions in the Supreme Court in *Gore.*But “Unless we are freed from the controlling effect of [the precedents], we have no choice but to countenance the sentences here imposed.” 100 U.S.App. D.C. at 319, 244 F.2d at 767.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                       1,248,000
<SECURITIES>                                 7,032,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,475,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   163,000
<INVENTORY>                                    271,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,450,000
<PP&E>                                       1,356,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 830,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,703,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,426,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,137,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,703,000
<SALES>                                      1,062,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,294,000
<CGS>                                          833,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,678,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                616,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   228,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            388,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   388,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,518,781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  580,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,168,411
<PP&E>                                         884,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                 550,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,542,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          922,426
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,030
<COMMON>                                       467,530
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,151,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,542,271
<SALES>                                      1,665,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,665,829
<CGS>                                        (168,088)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (168,088)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,091,654)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (25,953)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                430,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (44,271)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            386,389
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   386,389
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of C&J Energy
Services Ltd. (the Company) hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended by Amendment #1 thereto, of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: April 30, 2015



/s/ Joshua E. ComstockJoshua E. Comstock Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer