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

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Roger Gordon, Principal Executive Officer and
Director of Pure Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the Company), hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
      period ended December 31, 2008 (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: August 14, 2009

*/s/ Roger Gordon*Roger Gordon Principal
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 Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Guoqing Jiang, Chief 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)T he 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:  August 22, 2011








/s/   Guoqing JiangGuoqing JiangChief Executive Officer & Chairman
**Exhibit32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONBY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald T. Barnes,Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

Date:  November 23,2009

 
|   | /s/  Ronald T. Barnes                                         |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald T. Barnes                                              |
|   | Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

 

----
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2007-5164 

BRIAN ALAN BLAKLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Robert G. Nath, Robert G. Nath, PLLC, of McLean, Virginia, argued for plaintiffappellant. 

Teresa T. Milton, Attorney, Appellate Section, Tax Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on 

the brief were Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General; and Thomas J. Clark, 

Attorney. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Susan G. Braden 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-5164 

BRIAN ALAN BLAKLEY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

 

In CASE NO(S). 06-CV-749. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam: (MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge and DYK, Circuit

Judge): 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATE: June 5, 008 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 1384

YOLANDA E. JIMENEZ

- VENTURA; A. P. Q. J.

,

Petitioner

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR

, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : October 29, 2019 Decided: January 16, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS , Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael E. Rosado, LAW OFFICES OF ROSADO & SOLTREN, P.C., Beltsville, Maryland , for Petitioner. Joseph H . Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rodolfo D. Saenz

, Office of Immigration Litigation

, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Yolanda E. Jimenez

- Ventura and her minor child , native s and citizen s of El

Salvador , petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying their motion to

reopen and rescind their in absentia removal order. We have reviewed the administrative

record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of dis cretion. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.23(b) (201 9 ). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by

the Board. See In re Jimenez

- Ventura (B.I.A. Mar. 12 , 201 9 ). 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Heratsi  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Anna  Kazanchyan,  M.D.,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with 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/ Anna Kazanchyan, M.D
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Anna Kazanchyan, M.D.
                                        Principal Executive Officer
                                        Principal Financial Officer
                                        September 7, 2006
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 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 of US Uranium Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James D. Davidson,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of June
      27,
      2008.





/s/
                James D. DavidsonJames
                D. DavidsonChief
                Executive Officer andChief
                Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ January 3 1 , 2013 ERRATA

______________________ Appeal No. 2011 - 1615 , 2012 - 1108 I NVENTIO AG, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Decided: November 27 , 201 2 Nonp recedential Opinio n

______________________ Please make the following change: Page 2, line 11, delete “Inventio’s asserted patent is,” and insert -- the asserted claims of Inventio’s patent are -- . Page 7, line 11, after “validity,” insert -- of the asserted claims -- . Page 7, footnote 4; page 13, lines 4 - 5; and page 13, line 8, change “’094 patent is” to -- asserted claims of the ‘094 patent are -- . Page 11, line 29, before “the ‘094 patent,” insert -- the invention recited in the asserted claims of -- .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 00 37 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DALE STEVEN MARTELL,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 17 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 11 2020

06/11/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0037
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0 651

_____________________________
W ALTER H ICKS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE , D EPARTMENT O F R EVENUE , C HILD S UPPORT E NFORCEMENT P ROGRAM and T AMISA P OWELL , Appellee s

.

______ _______________________

On appeal from an order of the D ivision of Administrative Hearings

. Garnett Chisenhall
, Administrative Law Judge

. June 13, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. W OLF , L EWIS , and R AY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not fina l until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Walter Hicks, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tal lahassee
, for Appellee s

.
#### BUTTS et al. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.

Civil Action No. 1354 — 48.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

April 27, 1949.

*59Lipman Redman, of Washington, D. C., for defendant, for the motion.

Levi H. David, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs, opposed.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant in an action to recover damages for personal injuries to require the plaintiff to produce certain reports of medical examinations and certain hospital records.

As permitted by Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the defendant procured a medical examination of the plaintiff. Pursuant to Rule 35(b) (1), the plaintiff requested and received a copy of the report of the examining physician. The second sentence of Rule 35(b) (1) provides as follows:

> “After such request and delivery the party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party examined a like report of any examination previously or thereafter made, of the same mental or physical condition.”

Relying on this provision, the defendant now moves for copies of reports made by the plaintiff’s personal physician. In addition, however, the defendant requests copies of hospital records, copies of office records of various physicians who have treated the plaintiff on various occasions, copies of records of various optometrists, and the like.

The Rule must be reasonably construed. It does not place upon a party the burden of procuring copies of records of hospitals or of office records of physicians. It is limited to medical examinations conducted at the request of the party, and the reports, copies of which are subject to production, are the reports made by the physician as the result of such an examination.

In view of this circumstance, the Court is of the opinion that the defendant is entitled only to the written report of the examination of the physician who examined the plaintiff in her own behalf, to wit, Dr. W. P. Howard. The motion is granted only in respect to the report of this physician, and is denied as to The balance.

 In the alternative, the defendant requests that the plaintiff be directed to authorize the defendant to procure copies of hospital records involving her. The Court denies this request. The proper way of procuring such records is by taking depositions under Rule 26. If the question of privilege arises, and if the defendant contends that the privilege has been waived under Rule 35(b) (2), the matter should be disposed of at the taking of the depositions.
#### In the Matter of Joshua S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 877]

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (s*ee People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The testimony of the victim and eyewitness provided ample evidence to support the inference that appellant was a participant in the crimes and not a bystander.

As the presentment agency concedes, the finding as to felony assault (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) should be vacated because there was no underlying felony other than the assault itself, and the *470third-degree assault finding should be vacated as a lesser included offense under the remaining second-degree assault count. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6936

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SONNY CARLTON MEEKS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-42, CA-98-532-2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 4, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sonny Carlton Meeks, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Meeks , Nos. CR-95-42; CA98-532-2 (E.D. Va. May 21, 1998). We have reviewed the record and find that Appellant’s motion was not timely filed in the district court. See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030, at *6 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (determining the limitation period with regard to post-AEDPA 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petitions in cases where the conviction became final prior to the statute’s enactment). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         470,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,357,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,200,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,250,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,887,000
<PP&E>                                       6,254,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,676,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,280,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,572,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       147,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,439,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,280,000
<SALES>                                     42,593,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,593,000
<CGS>                                       39,201,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,201,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,444,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               330,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,338,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,390,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,390,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                954,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,436,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.35)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit No. 32.1**

Form 10-Q

Marketing Acquisition Corporation

File No. 0-52072

**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 Marketing Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy P. Halter, Chief Executive and Chief Financial 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 operations of the Company. |
|--|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                                         |   |   |                              |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Dated: October 27, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |   |   | /s/ Timothy P. Halter             |   |   |
|                                                |   |   | Timothy P. Halter                 |        |        |
|                                           |   |   | Chief Executive Officer           |        |        |
|                                                |   |   | and Chief Financial Officer  |        |        |

----

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Marketing Acquisition Corporation and will be retained by Marketing Acquisition Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

       CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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, W.
Peter Ragan, Jr., Chief Financial 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:

         3.       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

         4.       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/ W. PETER RAGAN, JR.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           W. Peter Ragan, Jr.
                                           Chief Financial Officer