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 Diet Coffee, Inc., the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
      Stocknoff **,
      Chief Executive Officer**  **and
      Chief Financial Officer,** certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:






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






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






/s/
      David Stocknoff




****


Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer
      (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)






Date:
      May
      21, 2007






21
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF DIGITAL MICROWAVE
CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,130
<SECURITIES>                                    15,220
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,795
<INVENTORY>                                     60,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,809
<PP&E>                                          72,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,702
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           466
<OTHER-SE>                                     178,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,400
<SALES>                                        310,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               310,490
<CGS>                                          197,048
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                92,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   356
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,858
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,878
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.

                    Certification of Chief Executive 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 annual report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Charles D. Kissner, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that
to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

Date: May 19, 2003                                      /s/ Charles D. Kissner
                                                            Charles D. Kissner
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
# Result 4.1
November 9, 2017

8:30 a.m. Registration

9:00 a.m. Commissioner’s welcome and review of agency developments (Bill Wiatrowski)

9:45 a.m. Changes to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the

Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system (Sania Khan, Theresa Cosca,

Bill Wascher)

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Data Collection Tools with a Data User Focus and Improving the “At a Glance”

 webpages (Michael Strople, Stacey Standish, Marie Mora)

11:30 a.m. Comparing industry indexes between the International Price Program (IPP) and the

 Producer Price Program (PPI) (Bill Thompson, Jon Weinhagen, Kathryn Kobe)

12:15 p.m. Lunch

1:15 p.m. Data Warehouse and External Access initiative (Michael Levi, Randy Eberts)

2:15 p.m. Publicizing revamped modeled wages (Jen Coleman, Andrew Reamer)

3:15 p.m. Break

3:30 p.m. BLS Public Data Application Programming Interface (API) (Amrit Kohli, Maureen

 Haver)

4:30 p.m. Meeting wrap-up

Data Users Advisory Committee (DUAC) Meeting
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    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: November 12, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Robert C. KillRobert C. KillPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

       CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
                                  SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2003, I, John
C. Kleinert, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

         1.       Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
                  31, 2003, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
                  for the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Velocity Asset Management, Inc.

                                    VELOCITY ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.


Dated: April 9, 2004                By: /s/ JOHN C. KLEINERT
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John C. Kleinert, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
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 Dekania Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Nathaniel, Chief Investment Officer and Secretary (principal executive officer) of the Company,
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) 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 operation of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 19, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ DAVID NATHANIEL
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | David Nathaniel                                                     
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Chief Investment Officer and Secretary (principal
executive officer)
January 30. 2012

I )a ECT

Honorable Stanley R. Chester, U.S.D.J.

United States District Court

District of New Jersey

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building &

US. Courthouse50 Walnut Street

Newark, NJ 07101

Re: James Wright v. Hartjbrd Financial Services Group, et ai.

Civil Action No.: 2:11-CV-00602-SRC-MAS

SDMA File No,: 02489-000119

DearJudge Chesler:

This office represents the defendant, Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”),

in the above-referenced matter. We are writing to respectfully request that the Court grant all parties a twoweek extension of time to file their reply papers in further support of their respective motions for summary

judgment from February 3, 2012 to February 17, 2012. In addition, Hartford also requests that the Court

extend its time to file its reply papers in further support of its motion to strike the plaintiff’s attorney’s

affidavit and corresponding exhibits submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment from

February 6, 2012 to February 21, 2012;

On Friday, Janua 27, 2012, plaintiff served and filed several submissions in support of both his

opposition to Hartford’s motion for summary judgment and his opposition to Hartford motion to strike.Specifically, the plaintiff med a 25 page memorandum of law in opposition to Hartford’s motion for

summary judgment; an Affidavit in opposition to Hartford’s motion to strike, including a request for leave

of the Court to file a proposed amended Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts; and a memorandum of lawin opposItion to I iar:ford’s motion to strike. These submissions include new arguments that the plaintiff did

not submit during Hartford’s administrative review process or in support of his own motion for summary

judgment and also, include a request for new relief Qe. for leave to file an amended Rule 561 Statement of

Material Facts). Therefore, Hartford requires an extension of time to sufflciently respond to the plaintiff’s

several submissions. As referenced above, the plaintiff joins in Hartford’s request for a two-week extension

of rime to file his reply papers in further support of his motion for summary judgment and also, consents to

Hartford’s request regarding its motion to strike.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

NY/757397v1
Daniel Meier

Sedgwick LLP

cc:

Via RtguhirMail and EF

Kevin T. Kutyla, Esq.

NY/757397v1
#### Carol Ehrgott, Appellant, v Daniel F. Buzerak, Respondent.

[857 NYS2d 574]

*682The parties were married in 1974. While married, they purchased the former marital home located in Croton Falls and took ownership as tenants by the entirety. On or about November 6, 1998 a judgment of divorce was entered in an action commenced by the plaintiff. The judgment stated, inter alia, “that the parties . . . have no marital property to be disposed of equitably pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236B (5).” The defendant continued to reside in, and maintain, the former marital home.

In 2005 the plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 9 for the partition of the subject property. The defendant, acknowledging that, “under the circumstances [,] the plaintiff still has an ownership interest in the premises,” moved, in effect, for a judgment declaring the respective rights of the parties to the property. The plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Upon searching the record on the plaintiffs cross motion, the Supreme Court awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. The court concluded that the plaintiffs claim to the subject property was both collaterally and judicially estopped. We reverse.

Absent any disposition of the property, the judgment of divorce simply converted the parties’ tenancy by the entirety in the property to a tenancy in common *(see Goldman v Goldman,*95 NY2d 120, 122 [2000]; *Thomas v Samuel,*40 AD3d 744, 745 [2007]). It did not otherwise affect the parties’ rights and, indeed, the defendant acknowledged that the judgment of divorce did not extinguish the plaintiffs ownership interest in the property. Nor was the plaintiff estopped from asserting that interest.

The judgment of divorce stated only that “the parties . . . have no marital property to be disposed of equitably pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236B (5).” Under the circumstances of this case, that represented a finding, not that the parties had no marital property, but that they were not asking the court to equitably distribute any marital property. Inasmuch as the judgment of divorce did not award exclusive occupancy to the defendant, it does not bar the plaintiff, as a tenant in common, from *683seeking to partition the property (see *Freigang v Freigang,*256 AD2d 539 [1998]; *cf. Ripp v Ripp,*38 AD2d 65 [1971], *affd*32 NY2d 755 [1973]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in searching the record on the plaintiffs cross motion and awarding summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint.

On this limited appeal, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions raised in their respective motion papers regarding, inter alia, the defendant’s alleged right to reimbursement for the expenses he incurred in connection with the subject property during the period of his sole occupancy. Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.
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

I, Charles C. Ward, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Constellation Energy Partners LLC, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i) The
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Constellation Energy Partners LLC.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Charles C. Ward                  
|Charles C. Ward                      
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date: November 7, 2008
# table9_q3.1_size
PLS CPA, A PROFESSIONAL CORP.t



|
|





October 24, 2012



To Whom It May Concern:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of American Home Alliance Corp. of our report dated October 24, 2012, with respect to the balance sheets as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of income, cash flows, and shareholders' deficit for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, which appears on Form 10-K Amendment No. 1 of American Home Alliance Corp.





Very truly yours,





---

October 24, 2012
San Diego, CA. 92111



Registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board





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

| March 29, 2011 |   | /s/ Evan Myrianthopoulos      |   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|           |   | Evan Myrianthopoulos          |   |
|           |   | Chief Financial Officer       |   |
|           |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----
Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP-LHG   Document 26   Filed 05/22/12   Page 1 of 4 PageID: 622

Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP-LHG   Document 26   Filed 05/22/12   Page 2 of 4 PageID: 623

Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP-LHG   Document 26   Filed 05/22/12   Page 3 of 4 PageID: 624

Case 3:11-cv-00597-JAP-LHG   Document 26   Filed 05/22/12   Page 4 of 4 PageID: 625
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BODDIE-NOELL
PROPERTIES, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          431,531
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   156,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              2,069,730
<PP&E>                                      243,910,146
<DEPRECIATION>                              (25,926,208)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              224,269,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,339,742
<BONDS>                                     150,883,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                     70,018,974
<OTHER-SE>                                  (20,122,533)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                224,269,635
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             33,457,483
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                16,978,762
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2,321,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           10,703,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               2,726,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2,726,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2,726,261
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.46




</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P.(“BGH”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Vance E. Powers, Acting Chief Financial Officer of MainLine Management LLC, the general partner of BGH, hereby certify, tomy knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|                         | MAINLINE  MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                |
| Date:  November 4, 2008 | /s/ VANCE E.  POWERS                                |
|                         | Vance E. Powers                                     |
| * *                     | *Acting  Chief Financial Officer*                   |

 

----
#### GALM v. BRIGHTON FIREPROOF STORAGE CO.

No. 54 Civil.

District Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.

Nov. 25, 1940.

Dolle, O’Donnell & Cash, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.

August A. Rendigs, Jr., Anthony B. Dunlap, and Herman W. Santen, all of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant.

NEVIN, District Judge.

On September 18, 1940, defendant herein, the Brighton Fireproof Storage Company, filed a motion “to make Great American Indemnity Company, a corporation, a party defendant herein.” The cause is now *508before the court on that motion. The granting of the motion is opposed by plaintiff. Counsel for the respective parties have presented oral arguments and filed briefs in favor of and contra the motion.

Defendant premises its motion on Rule 19(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and Section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the State of New York, Consol. Laws N.Y. c. 66. It is conceded, in fact stated, in the motion itself, that the Great American Indemnity Company “is not an indispensable party herein.” Defendant claims, however, that it “ought to be made a party, if complete relief is to be accorded between the present parties herein,” basing this claim on certain reasons set forth in the motion.

If complete relief can be accorded between the parties the motion should be overruled. Sauer v. Newhouse, D.C., 24 F.Supp. 911.

Upon a review of the applicable law, the court is of opinion that such complete relief can be accorded and that the Great American Indemnity Company ought not to be made a party to this action. As stated by counsel for plaintiff in their brief, to bring the Great American Indemnity Company in as a party defendant would only tend to confuse the issues and might open the way to the admission of improper and irrelevant testimony.

The court finds the motion not well taken and that it should be, and it is, overruled. Counsel may prepare an order accordingly.