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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, that to his knowledge:

      1) BKF Capital Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the annual period ended
      December 31, 2010 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 BKF Capital Group, Inc.'s Form 10-KSB for
      the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Dated:  March 31, 2011


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, CEO
CERTIFICATION
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                          SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-C ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies  with the  requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the information  contained  in  the Report fairly  presents,  in all
            material   respects,   the  financial   condition  and   results  of
            operations of the Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of August, 2002.

                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-C
                              ("Issuer")

                              //S//Dennis R. Neill
                              -------------------------------------
                              Dennis R. Neill
                              President (Chief Executive Officer)

                              //s//Craig D. Loseke
                              -------------------------------------
                              Craig D. Loseke
                              Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31(d)

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CERTIFICATION

I,
Kevin W. Hadlock, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Baltimore Gas and Electric 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for
the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



Date:
February 27, 2009

|                                                  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ KEVIN W. HADLOCK                              |  | 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60117

Summary Calendar

DONNA STURKIN,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICKY PATRICK,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:16-CV-434

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellee Donna Sturkin filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit

against Defendant-Appellant Vicky Patrick, a state employee. Sturkin alleged

that Patrick, in her official capacity as Sturkin’s probation officer in an 

alternative state program, had extorted financial benefits by requiring Sturkin 

(1) as a store cashier, not to charge Patrick for various items during checkout, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60117 Document: 00515230685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2019
No. 19-60117

2

and (2) as a motel clerk, to allow Patrick and members of her family to room 

there without paying to do so.

Sturkin’s case was eventually tried to a district court jury. The trial court 

ruled that Patrick was not entitled to qualified immunity, and the jury found 

that Patrick had violated Sturkin’s civil rights for which it awarded $350,000 

in damages to Sturkin. The district court also overruled Patrick’s challenge 

based upon the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477 (1994). The Heck ruling is the only issue Patrick raises on appeal.

We have reviewed in detail the briefs of the parties and the relevant 

portions of the record on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not 

reversibly err in the challenged ruling.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-60117 Document: 00515230685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2019
*Thursday, March 6, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

96-2872.

#### State v. Raglin.

Hamilton C.P. No. B96000135. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for an order suspending briefing time pending the filing of the transcript of proceedings,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for an order suspending briefing time pending the filing of the transcript of proceedings be, and hereby is, granted, effective March 5,1997.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the briefing schedule under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIX(5)(A), shall commence when the Clerk of the Supreme Court receives and files the transcript of proceedings from the trial 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 Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - VI A (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner
and Principal Financial Officer, certify, 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 my knowledge:

       (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 the
                operations of the Partnership.


           May 17, 2004                        /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
           ------------                        ------------------------------
               Date                            Joseph M. Jayson,
                                               Individual General Partner and
                                               Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

# Written Statement
of the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bandag,
Incorporated Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chairman of
the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bandag, Incorporated (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Martin G. Carver  Martin G. CarverChairman
and Chief Executive Officer

March 1, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         401,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,526,022<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     84,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,191,288
<PP&E>                                         627,019<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,468,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,057,664
<BONDS>                                      4,319,694<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          211,863<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       376,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,025,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,468,461
<SALES>                                      6,983,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        3,407,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,318,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             615,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,418
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<FN>
<F1>Net of Allowances
<F2>Net of Depreciation
<F3>Long-Term Debt
<F4>Redeemable Warrants
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

 

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on August 14, 2003 (the "Report") each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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: August 13, 2003                             /S/ JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                                  John W. Whitney

                                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                                  Chief Financial Officer

30
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-E  ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 12th day of August, 2005.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-E
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-E and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-E and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6120.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

Christopher Young, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### In the Matter of Patrice Miloslau, Respondent, v Michael Miloslau, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 894]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Michael Miloslau appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), entered July 18, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Patrice Miloslau and, in effect, the marital residence, until and including July 16, 2014.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the allegations contained in the petition by a “fair preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct Act § 832; *see Matter of Testa v Strickland,*99 AD3d 917 [2012]; *Matter of Thomas v Thomas,*72 AD3d 834, 835 [2010]). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see Matter of Kondor v Kondor,*109 AD3d 660 [2013]; *Matter of Shields v Brown,*107 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2013]; *Matter of Creighton v Whitmore,*71 AD3d 1141 [2010]). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; *Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar,*109 AD3d 473, 474 [2013]; *Matter of Scanziani v Hairston,*100 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]).

Under the circumstances presented, the Family Court’s failure to hold a dispositional hearing prior to issuing the order of protection does not require reversal *(see Matter of Sperling v*
      *633
      *Sperling,*96 AD3d 1067 [2012]; *Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino,*60 AD3d 773, 773-774 [2009]; *Matter of Hassett v Hassett,*4 AD3d 527 [2004]). In addition, the order of protection, which directed the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner and, in effect, the marital residence, was reasonably necessary to provide meaningful protection to the petitioner *(see Matter ofMistretta v Mistretta,*85 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2011]; *Matter of Charles v Charles,*21 AD3d 487, 488 [2005]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
97-497.

#### State v. Davis.

Franklin App. No. 96APA02-233. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Resnick, J., dissents.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13912]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,858]

Schnadig Corporation, Des Plaines, IL; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on April 28, 2009 in response 
to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Schnadig 
Corporation, Des Plaines, Illinois.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13912 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ENERVA W. TROTMAN, a/k/a Charles Carlos Clark,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Greenville. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (4:91-cr-00092-M-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2023 Decided: February 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enerva W. Trotman, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6705 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Enerva W. Trotman appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a 

sentence reduction and compassionate release, challenging only the denial of his 

compassionate release request. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Trotman, No. 4:91-cr-00092-M-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2022). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6705 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2