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 annual report of Coastal Banking Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael G. Sanchez , certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





|                     |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2008 |  | /s/ Michael G. Sanchez                               
|                     |  | Michael G. Sanchez                                   
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|                     |  |                                                      



| |  |                                                                     
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Paul R. Garrigues                                               
| |  | Paul R. Garrigues                                                   
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



(ii) A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Abdul Karim, Appellant, v Pervaiz Malik et al., Respondents.

[788 NYS2d 106]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered December 5, 2003, after a nonjury trial, insofar as appealed from, implicitly dismissing plaintiffs claim to recover money and property given in contemplation of marriage, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the record shows that plaintiff proposed marriage to defendant Azbela by tendering an engagement ring to her mother with a request that the latter speak to Azbela on his behalf, not even plaintiff could say whether Azbela ever wore it. Azbela testified that she never did, that she told plaintiff she did not want to marry him and that the pair never dated. The trial court’s finding that there was no engagement is not inconsistent with its directive that the ring be returned to plaintiff, since Azbela testified that she offered to return the ring but that plaintiff refused. Nor is the finding that there was no engagement inconsistent with the directive that Azbela and her family members, also defendants, return to plaintiff the money he advanced to them as a down payment on a house, there being sufficient evidence that the money was given as a loan, not as a gift in contemplation of marriage *(see*Civil Rights Law *417§ 80-b). While the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence of the value of the other gifts he gave defendants, since there was no promise of marriage, the gifts could not have been given in contemplation of marriage. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.
#### Hiram Wallingford *v.*Sanford Dayle et al.

Appeal from Quarterly Court — Dismissal of Case.

An appeal to the Circuit Court operates as a merger of the judgment and is an original suit in that court as long as prosecuted; yet its voluntary discontinuance by plaintiff left the judgment in as full force as it was before the appeal suspended its validity.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

September 19, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson :

While we gravely apprehend that S. Dayle never paid for the com he bought from A. Sandford and that the alleged payment to Elston as Sandford’s ostensible agent was a collusive fabrication, we cannot see how the appellant can avoid the bar to his reoovery of it as creditor of Sandford, which Dayle pleads in the judgment of the quarterly court to the effect that Elston’s receipt was genuine proof of a valid payment.

Although the appeal to the Circuit Court operated as a merger of that judgment and is an original suit in that court as long as prosecuted, yet its voluntary discontinuance by the plaintiff left the judgment in as full force as it was before the appeal suspended its vitality.

Wherefore, the judgment dismissing Wallingford’s petition to subject that debt must be affirmed.
F/A-18

Want to learn more about the F/A-18? Go to: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/aircraft/F-18/overview.html

• NASA owns several F/A-18 jets that were designed for the military.

• NASA uses the jets to test new ideas and equipment to make flying better.

• The jets also are flown so the pilots can watch other airplanes to make sure they 

are safe when doing experiments.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.32

                            FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
                      MEDAPHIS DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


         THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT, is made as of January 20, 2000, by PER-SE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (formerly Medaphis Corporation), a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (hereinafter
called the "Primary Sponsor");

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor adopted the Medaphis Deferred
Compensation Plan (the "Plan") by indenture originally dated April 1, 1995 and
the Plan was last amended on December 31, 1997; and

         WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor wishes to amend the Plan to change the
name of the Plan to the Per-Se Technologies Deferred Compensation Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Primary Sponsor does hereby amend the Plan,
effective as of January 20, 2000, to change the name of the Plan to the "Per-Se
Technologies Deferred Compensation Plan."

         Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect as prior to this Fourth Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Primary Sponsor has caused this Fourth
Amendment to be executed on the day and year first above written.

                                  PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                  By:   /s/ ALLEN W. RITCHIE
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Allen W. Ritchie
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
[CORPORATE SEAL]

ATTEST:



By:  /s/ RANDOLPH L. M. HUTTO
     -------------------------
     Randolph L. M. Hutto
     Secretary
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



The undersigned executive officer of FC BANC CORP. (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Robert W. SiegelName:

Robert W. SiegelTitle:

Vice President,Chief Financial Officer




Date: November 15, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to FC BANC CORP.. and will be retained by FC BANC CORP.. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
  **CERTIFICATON
        OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 
 **Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to**
 **§
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of
        the
        Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period
        ending June 30, 2007, the (“Report”), I ,William P. Hales, certify, pursuant to
        18 U.S.C. § 906 1350, 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 results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/Catherine
        M. Davidson
 Catherine
        M. Davidson
 Financial
        Officer
 (Principal
        Financial Officer)
 
 
 August
        13, 2007














A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc.  and will be retained by Hemagen
      Diagnostics, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                  ------------

                              Nematron Corporation

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Nematron Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Matthew S.
Galvez, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Tina M. Raiford, as
Controller of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:
(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Nematron Corporation and will be
retained by Nematron Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Matthew S. Galvez
---------------------
Name:    Matthew S. Galvez
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    August 14, 2003


/s/ Tina M. Raiford
-------------------
Name:    Tina M. Raiford
Title:   Controller
Date:    August 14, 2003


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Kevin M Gagne, Chief Executive Officer of Empire Financial Holding
Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this First Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (the
"Report") of Empire Financial Holding Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such 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 and based on such evaluation;

   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 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

   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.

 Date: April 15, 2004

 /s/ Kevin M. Gagne
 ------------------
 Kevin M. Gagne, Chief Executive Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Emmanie Phillips a/k/a Aisha Whalea, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>In consolidated criminal appeals, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J., at plea; Erika M. Edwards, J., at sentencing), rendered July 25, 2014, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment (same court, Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered July 25, 2014, convicting her, upon plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgments of conviction (Lisa A. Sokoloff, at plea; Erika M. Edwards, J. at sentencing), and (Erika M. Edwards, J.) each rendered July 25, 2014, affirmed.</p><p>Application by appellant's counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (<i>see Anders v California</i>, 386 US 738 [1967]; <i>People v Saunders</i>, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders</i>, and, upon an independent review of the record, agree that there is no</p><br>valid appealable issue that could be raised on appeal.<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: March 21, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
June 24, 1997



Rabar Market Research
10 Bank St. - Suite 830
White Plain, N.Y. 10606


Attention:  Mr. John Dreyer
            Mr. Paul Rabar

     Re:  Management Agreement Renewal
          F-1000 Futures Fund L.P., Series IX

Dear Mr. Dreyer & Mr. Rabar:

We are  writing  with  respect  to  your  management  agreement  concerning  the
commodity pool to which reference is made above (the "Management Agreement"). We
would like to extend the term of the Management Agreement through June 30, 1998.
The  incentive fee will now be paid  annually  instead of  quarterly.  All other
provisions of the Management Agreement will remain unchanged.

Please indicate your agreement to and acceptance of this modification by signing
one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel Dantuono
at the address above.


Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT INC.




By:
     Chief Financial Officer,
     Director & Treasurer


AGREED AND ACCEPTED

RABAR MARKET RESEARCH



By:


Print Name:
DAD/sr
rw/1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6050
In re: RAPHAEL MENDEZ,

Petitioner,
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (5:91-HC-350-BR) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raphael Mendez, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Raphael Mendez petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order compelling the district court to expedite the date of his scheduled competency hearing and to have him appear in person rather than by video conferencing. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. SeeIn re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Because there is no indication Mendez has a clear right to the requested relief, we deny his petition. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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. PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wesley Kelly, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 330]

*391Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 7, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (seven counts), and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court provided a meaningful response to the jury’s note seeking instruction on the “criteria we can use to evaluate circumstantial evidence” *(see People v Malloy, 55*NY2d 296 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 847 [1982]). Since there was direct evidence of defendant’s guilt, there was no need for a circumstantial evidence instruction, and the court had properly declined to give such an instruction in its main charge *(see People v Roldan,*88 NY2d 826 [1996]). Accordingly, the court was not required to give an inapplicable instruction merely because the jury requested it.

Defendant’s claim that the court violated the principles of *People v O'Rama*(78 NY2d 270 [1991]) by failing to adequately apprise defense counsel of its intended response is unpreserved *(see People v Starling,*85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it because the court informed counsel of the substance of its intended response and gave counsel an opportunity to be heard *(see People v O'Rama,*78 NY2d at 277-278).

The court did not violate defendant’s right to represent himself at the sentencing proceedings, since defendant never made an unequivocal request to proceed pro se *(see People v Rainey,*240 AD2d 682 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 836 [1997]). Amid various complaints about his trial counsel and other matters, defendant’s sole expression of interest in representing himself at the sentencing proceedings was followed, almost immediately, by his apparent agreement with the court’s observation that self-representation at that stage of the case would be undesirable. Furthermore, defendant had ample opportunity to clarify his position but failed to do so. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to conclude that defendant was requesting pro se status as an alternative position to a primary request for new counsel.

Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender *392is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit *(see People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]). Defendant’s mandatory sentence as a persistent violent felony offender was triggered solely by his prior convictions *(see Almendarez-Torres v United States,*523 US 224 [1998]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
EXHIBIT
      32.0





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT, CEO (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER) AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sandston Corporation
      (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel J. Dorman, as
      President, CEO and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





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





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











/s/
      Daniel J. Dorman





Name: Daniel
      J.
      Dorman


Title: President,
      CEO (Principal Executive Officer) and Principal Financial Officer


Date: May
      10,
      2006








This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.