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




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Familymeds Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 1, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edgardo
      A. Mercadante, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
      Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with 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/
                Edgardo A. Mercadante*Edgardo
                A. MercadantePresident,
                Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and Principal Executive
                OfficerAugust
                15, 2006
No. 36.

#### Grenville & Battey, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*J. J. Trammell, defendant in error.

[1.] A party is arrested on a *ca. sa.*issued in favor of the firm of Grenville <5s Battey, and gives bonds payable to Charles E. Grenville *&*William II. Battey; in the condition of the bond it is recited that the ca. *sa.*issued in favor of Charles E. Grenville & William I-I. Battey, and the *ca. sa.*itself recites that these individuals compose the firm of Grenville & Battey. *Held,*that the bond is a valid bond.

*Ca. sa.*from Whitfield Superior Court. Decided by Judge Lumpkin. October Term, 1852.

The facts of this case are as follows:

Jasper J. Trammell had been arrested on a *ca. sa.*in favor of Grenville & Battey and gave bond and security for his appearance at Court, to take the benefit of the “Act for the relief on honest and insolvent debtors.” This bond was made payable to Charles E. Grenville *k*William II. Battey, in*281stead of to Grenville & Battey. The defendant failed to appear, and the plaintiffs moved to enter judgment on the boüd against him and his securities. This was resisted, on the ground that the bond was not made payable to the plaintiffs in *ca. sa.*as required by the Statute. It appeared that Charles E. Grenville and William H. Battey were the persons composing the firm of Grenville & Battey. -

The Court sustained the objection, and decided that judgment could not be entered up on the bond.

To which decision plaintiff excepted.

Milner, for plaintiff in error.

No one appearing for defendant, the cause was heard *ex parte.*

*By the Court.*

Nisbet, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The single question here is, whether the bond is sufficient. The *ca. sa.*issued in favor of Grenville & Battey, and the bond is payable to Charles E. Grenville and William H. Battey. The assumption is, that this is not a bond payable to the plaintiffs in the process, and therefore void. The Statute makes it the privilege of a party arrested on a *ca. sa.*to avoid commitment by giving a bond to the plaintiff, with security for his appearance. It does not require it to be given, much less does it prescribe the form of the bond, or declare that a bond in any other form shall be void. In this last particular, the bond is in a different position from what the attachment bond occupies, which we have held must be in strict conformity with the Statute. The condition of this bond recites that the *ca. sa.*issued in favor of Charles E. Grenville and William H. Battey, and .the *ca. sa.*itself recites that Charles E. Grenville and William H. Battey, constitute the firm of Grenville & Battey. The obligees are therefore identified as the persons who compose the firm, which is the plaintiff in the process. The obligors, by their own recitals, we *282hold to be estopped from denying that their bond is made *to*the plaintiffs in the *ca. sa.*

Let the judgment be reversed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1539

IDA M. JACKSON; VENUS O. JACKSON; AARON P.

JACKSON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SUSAN WAHLGREN, formerly known as S. R.

Hollinger, Trooper, Maryland State Police,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

MARYLAND STATE POLICE; LARRY W. TOLLIVER,

Colonel Superintendent Maryland State Police;

D. B. MACLEAN, 1st Lieutenant Commander;

SERGEANT CASPER; OFFICER GOLDMAN; OFFICER

LASSIE; OFFICER HOUSE; OFFICER NORDSTRAM;

J. O. HAMMELMANN, Major,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA93-2504-DKC)

Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 22, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ida M. Jackson, Venus O. Jackson, Aaron P. Jackson, Appellants Pro

Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Betty Stemley Sconion, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly

Elizabeth Rice, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief on

their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

To the extent Appellants' notice of appeal brings up for consideration the district court's rulings in prior orders, we find no error

and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. Maryland State Police, No. CA-93-2504-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 7, 1997; Apr. 12

and Oct 21, 1996; June 20, 1995; Oct. 8 and Nov. 4, 1993). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5

<S>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                 2,486,179
<SECURITIES>                             754,575
<RECEIVABLES>                            727,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                  21
<INVENTORY>                              818,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       5,064,060
<PP&E>                                 1,686,248
<DEPRECIATION>                           453,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         6,402,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    591,651
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                  59,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             5,136,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           6,402,730
<SALES>                                2,570,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,570,838
<CGS>                                    845,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            845,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       2,272,146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (14,017)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (500,608)
<INCOME-TAX>                               1,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (501,922)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (501,922)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.08)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1



LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors

Kenon Holdings Ltd.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-201716) on Form S-8 of Kenon Holdings Ltd. of our reports dated
April 8, 2016, with respect to the consolidated statement of financial position of Kenon Holdings Ltd. as of December 31, 2015, and the related consolidated statements of profit and loss, other comprehensive loss, changes in equity, and
cash flows for the year then ended, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, which reports appear in the December 31, 2015 annual report on Form 20-F of Kenon Holdings Ltd.



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|              
|KPMG LLP      
|Singapore     
|April 21, 2016
585 A.2d 390

#### WEST JERSEY HEALTH SYSTEMS-EASTERN DIVISION v. TOWNSHIP OF VOORHEES.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBlyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer andPresident of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                            |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                                |
|   | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and  President |
|   | June 16, 2003                                    |

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject tothe knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, Ronald E. Hermance, Jr., certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hudson City Bancorp,
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;  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
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-l5(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.
    
    (paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986);c.
    
    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; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly 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 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):  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 registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    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. Date: August 6, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2114

In Re: ROBERT PADULA; DEBORAH PADULA,

Debtors.

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

VPSI, INC.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH PADULA,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS,

Amicus Supporting Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00612-AJT-IDD; 11-12985-BFK; 11-01456-

BFK)

Submitted: April 28, 2016 Decided: June 9, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Heather S. Deane, Adam D. Michel, BONNER, KIERNAN, TREBACH & 

CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John T. 

Donelan, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. DONELAN, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellee. Tara Twomey, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER 

BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS, J. Erick Heath, On Brief, San Jose, 

California, for Amicus Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

VPSI, Inc., appeals the district court’s order affirming 

the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtor’s motion for 

authorization to pursue a state court personal injury suit. We 

have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the 

parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the courts below. See VPSI, 

Inc. v. Padula, No. 1:15-cv-00612-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 

2015); No. 11-12985-BFK (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2015). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

----

|   | (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/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | June 4, 2010                         |

----
584 A.2d 242

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CLAUDIA GISSENDANER.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63167-63168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25795]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-95-244; Docket No. EL00-98-228]


San Diego Gas and Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and 
Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent 
System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; 
Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System 
Operator and the California Power Exchange Corporation; Notice of 
Filing

October 6, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 6, 2010, the California Power Exchange 
Corporation filed supplemental information to its May 4, 2010 refund 
compliance report, which was filed pursuant to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's November 20, 2008 Order on Rehearing and 
Motions for Clarification and Accounting, 125 FERC ] 61,214.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission,

[[Page 63168]]

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7a796e7f7352505552596f494c4c534e487c5a594e5f125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f9bfbcabbab6979590979caa8c8989968b8db99f9c8b9ad79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 27, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25795 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                          THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMA-
                          TION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
                          CONTAINED IN THE FOTOBALL USA, INC. FORM 10-QSB 
                          FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS 
                          QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  303,876
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         2,150,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                            151,276
<INVENTORY>                                           2,424,028
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      5,007,294
<PP&E>                                                2,345,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,152,572  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        6,643,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,101,619
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 26,917
<OTHER-SE>                                            8,570,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          6,643,881
<SALES>                                               3,761,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      3,761,403
<CGS>                                                 2,423,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,261,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        9,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          75,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                             29,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      45,266
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             45,266
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .02
                                               

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SHERMAN PRUDEN.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
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 OneLife Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2017 (the “Report”), I, Robert Wagner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: August 15, 2017By:/s/ Robert WagnerRobert WagnerChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**MICKEY CASTILLO,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 86 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of October, 2015, the Application for Leave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the Application for an Exercise of Either King’s**

**Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction and the Appli cation for Post-Submission** 

**Communication are** DENIED

**.**