alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32        Section 1350
Certifications.

---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Principal Financial Officer of HCSB Financial Corporation (the
Company), certifies that, to his knowledge on the date of this certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005 as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
          Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|Date:  March 24, 2006 |  | By:   /s/  James R. Clarkson       
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|                      |  | James R. Clarkson                  
|                      |  | President & Chief Executive Officer

|Date:  March 24, 2006 |  | By:   /s/  James R. Clarkson
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                      |  | James R. Clarkson           
|                      |  | Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Cytomedix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Martin P. Rosendale, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief:




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
      for said period.









/s/
Martin P.
Rosendale


Martin P.
Rosendale


Chief
Executive Officer


Date:  March
31, 2009




A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to Cytomedix, Inc.
and will be retained by Cytomedix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7190

DEMARCUS CORBITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BOYD BENNETT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00829-NCT)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demarcus Corbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Demarcus Corbitt seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable 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 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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Corbitt has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny Corbitt’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam Debard, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 and 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/ Adam Debard


Adam Debard


Principal Accounting Officer





August 13, 2010
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 74815 

also collected to facilitate overall 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

allocation of resources for VTS. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 334,895 

burden hours. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Respondent: 5 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: 3.32 (On 

Occasion). 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

100,872. 

Dated: December 11, 2014. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

Crystal Rennie, 

Department Clearance Officer, Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29391 Filed 12–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Performance Review Board Members: 

Correction 

AGENCY: Corporate Senior Executive 

Management Office, Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) published a notice, 

‘‘Performance Review Board Members,’’ 

in the Federal Register on December 12, 

2014, that contained an error. 

Specifically, it incorrectly stated that 

Pat Vandenberg would serve on the VA 

Performance Review Board. This notice 

corrects that error and announces the 

appointment of Elias Hernandez to the 

Board. 

DATES: Effective date: December 12, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Corporate Senior Executive 

Management Office, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20420. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact Tia N. Butler, Executive 

Director, Corporate Senior Executive 

Management Office (052), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– 

7865. (This is not a toll free number.) 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of December 

12, 2014, in FR Doc.14x–29262, on page 

73952, correct the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION by adding the name ‘‘Elias 

Hernandez’’ and removing the name 

‘‘Patricia C. Vandenberg’’. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose 

D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on December 12, 2014, for 

publication. 

Dated: December 12, 2014. 

William F. Russo, 

Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy 

& Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29545 Filed 12–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7978

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01-

cr-00533-PJM; 8:05-cv-00255-PJM)

Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion for clarification, filed in his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. The order is not appealable

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 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Reyes has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Reyes’ motion for 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,476,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,063,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,380
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,812,799
<PP&E>                                       7,136,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                 647,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,949,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,997,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,199,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,858,198
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,914,295
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,128,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,685,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             259,219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (557,146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   195,001
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (362,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (362,145)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.05)


</TABLE>
12043.

#### Howard *v.*The State.

Decided March 8, 1921.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Appling superior court — Judge Highsmith. October 30, 1920.

On April 15, 1920, Hattie Howard was tried upon a special presentment filed on the 12th of the same month, which charged *432that on March 17, 1920, she assaulted and shot Lucile Pearce with a pistol and gun, with intent to murder. The verdict was guilty of “shooting another.”

*431Bloodworth, J.

Under all the facts shown on the motion to ccntinue this case, we can not say that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to continue .the case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*

*432In the motion for a continuance it is stated: The shooting occurred at Surrency, in Appling county, Georgia, in the presence of Lillie Bell Norwood and Estelle Walker, who both reside in Surrency, and who would swear that Lucile Pearce had a razor in hand and was chasing the defendant and trying to take the defendant’s life with it, and the defendant procured a pistol from Estelle Walker and fired the shot at Lucile Pearce, and that the defendant did not start the trouble between herself and Lucile Pearce. The defendant has no other witness that was present or knows the facts about the case, whom she can summon to prove them. The defendant had subpoenas issued for these two witnesses on April 13, 1920. Immediately after the indictment was returned she delayed no time in trying to procure the attendance of these witnesses “ by having them served to attend” as witnesses at this term of court. This motion is not made for delay only; .these witnesses have not left the county or the place where they were, by consent or procurement of the defendant; she expects to have them present at the next term of the court and to be ready for trial then.

On the hearing of the motion the sheriff testified that he sent a bailiff to see about these'witnesses; that he had two subpoenas in his hands for service, and the witnesses could not be found; that one of them had not been at work “there” since the day of the shooting. Another witness testified that she resided at Surrency, where the shooting occurred; that the two witnesses mentioned by the defendant left after the shooting and on the same day and had not been seen since; that they had been living at Surrency until that time, but had not been back, and that she did not know where they were, and did not know of anybody else who knew. The defendant testified that after the shooting she-was arrested on a warrant, and was put in jail, had a trial, and was put back in jail; that when she was brought to jail she “ got them to get these witnesses, to have them subpoenaed,” told the deputy sheriff, who arrested her, to do this, and he told her he would see that all her witnesses were at court; and when she got out (about two weeks before making this motion) she had the clerk to issue subpoenas. *433As to the whereabouts of these witnesses she testified: “I do not know where they are.”

*J. B. Moore, II. L. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alvin V. Sellers, solicitor-general,*contra.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**Certificationof CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

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

**asAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HCC Industries Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 28, 2002 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Richard L. Ferraid, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and ChristopherH. Bateman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange 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/ Richard  L. Ferraid |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Richard L. Ferraid             |   |
| Chief Executive Officer        |   |
| February 10, 2003              |   |

 

 

 
|   /s/  Christopher H. Bateman |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Christopher H. Bateman             |   |
| Chief Financial Officer            |   |
| February 10, 2003                  |   |

 

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

 

----
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1650, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   I, Simon J. Anderson, Chief Financial Officer of Buffalo Gold Ltd. (the Company), certify that to the best of my knowledge:  1. the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 as 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  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ SIMON J. ANDERSON  Simon J. Anderson Chief Financial Officer June 27, 2008     ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Buffalo Gold Ltd.  December 31, 2007 20F Page 1 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS

C O R R E C T E D M A N D A T E

TO THE 144TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 1, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Paulino Flores, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00315-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2012CR1058

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the

trial court is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on June 2, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of Kent Financial  Services,  Inc. for the six months ended June 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000316028
<NAME>                          KENT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                           9,449 
<SECURITIES>                     3,922
<RECEIVABLES>                      601
<ALLOWANCES>                         0    
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                13,972
<PP&E>                           1,688
<DEPRECIATION>                     447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  15,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,824
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                           100
<OTHER-SE>                      12,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    15,530
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 3,432
<CGS>                                0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 2,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    818
<INCOME-TAX>                        53
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                765
<DISCONTINUED>                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                       765
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .76
        


</TABLE>
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice
 On December 15, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Riverview Trenton Railroad Company, Civ. Action No. 2:14-cv-14707-PDB-MJH.* Riverview Trenton Railroad Company (“RTRR”) owns property that was formerly part of the McLouth Steel facility located near Detroit, Michigan (“RTRR Site”). The proposed settlement resolves the United States' claims against RTRR under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, for recovery of response costs incurred at the RTRR Site. Under the proposed Consent Decree, RTRR will pay $675,000.00 to resolve the Government's claims. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Riverview Trenton Railroad Company, Civ. Action No. 2:14-cv-14707-PDB-MJH,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-10709. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
                    ( print page 78109) *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By e-mail
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: 
                    *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​Consent_​Decrees.html.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Randall M. Stone, Acting Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2014-30331 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P