alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
------------

                                  CERTIFICATION

I Neil Martucci, Chief Financial Officer, of TETRAGENEX PHARMACEUTICALS, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TETRAGENEX
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

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

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the Company, including its subsidiaries, if any, is
     made known to us by others within those entities, if any, particularly
     during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Company's other certifying officers, if any, and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee
of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls;
     and

6. The Company's other certifying officers, if any, and I have indicated in this
amended annual report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 11, 2007


/s/ Neil Martucci

Neil Martucci
Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 9   Filed 03/24/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 17

Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 9   Filed 03/24/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 18
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Federal Reserve Bank on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad E. Schwartz, Executive Vice President 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.



|                       |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Brad E. Schwartz.                               
|                       |  | Brad E. Schwartz                                    
|                       |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



27
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                          90,741
<SECURITIES>                                     2,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,087
<INVENTORY>                                     61,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,097
<PP&E>                                         933,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                 289,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 938,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,955
<BONDS>                                         70,000
<COMMON>                                           517
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     697,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   938,357
<SALES>                                        577,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               577,791
<CGS>                                          402,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  402,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,011
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                121,148
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,595
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            109,974
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109,974
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.06
        


</TABLE>
Case 3:10-cv-06733-AET-TJB Document 6 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 58
Case 3:10-cv-06733-AET-TJB Document 6 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 59
Exhibit 32

 

Chief Executive and FinancialOfficer Certification (Section 906)

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18U.S.C., SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

 

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executiveand Financial Officer of Global Immune Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended March  31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

Dated: October 24, 2012
**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 Northeast Auto Acceptance Corp. (the
      "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
      2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, William Solko, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32, fully
                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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
                Registrant.





Dated:
                November 14, 2007
            /s/
                William SolkoWilliam
                Solko,Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
      retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
      by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of
      1933
      or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date
      of
      the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
      contained in such filing.
V. C rim. No. 11-1 12 (SRC)

x

l-IAKFM SIRYA\I.

x

Defendant, ORDER

x

This matter having come beibre this Court with respect to the (.S. Probation

Office’s Amended Petition for a Warrant or Summons for an Offender under Supervision, and

the Court having issued a warrant for the arrest of defendant Flakem Siryani, and the defendant

having appeared before this Court on September 10, 2012 at which time the matter was

adjourned until November 1920I2. at 10:30 a.m.. and for good cause shown.

IT IS on this / of September, 2012,

OR[)ERE.D THAT the arrest warrant issued on July 30. 2012 for defendant Ilakem

Sirvani is hereby vacated. . I nited Stjte’, D1’tr1Lt ludge
Exhibit
32.01


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 PlayBox (US) Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
Burden
  (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/
      Robert
      BurdenBy:
      Robert
      Burden
                    Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# Table 1902. occup
#### Knute Seglem v. N. A. Yeager *et al.*

No. 663. *

Limitation or *Action—Case Followed.*The case of *Frame v. Ashley,*59 Kan. 477, 53 Pac. 474, cited and followed.

Error from Butler district court; A. M. Jackson, judge.

Opinion filed March 20, 1899.

Reversed.

*Redden & Schumacher,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hamilton & Leydig,*and *Shinn & Knowles,*for defendants in error..

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dennison, P. J.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Butler county by the plaintiff in error to recover the sum of $387 from the defendants in error. The second amended petition alleged that *656the defendants were the directors of the Bank of Augusta, and that the plaintiff had deposited therein the amount claimed when the bank was insolvent and known to be insolvent by the defendants at the time it received his deposit, but that the fact of the bank’s insolvency was not known to him at the time of making said deposit. The defendants demurred to the second amended petition, which demurrer was by the court sustained.

The question involved in this case is the statute of limitations. Since this case was tried in the district court the question has been decided by our supreme court in *Frame v. Ashley,*59 Kan. 477, 53 Pac. 474 adversely to the contention of the defendants in error. They have filed an exhaustive brief on the construction of chapter 47, Laws of 1897 (Gen. Stat. 1897, ch. 18), claiming that the decision of the supreme court in *Frame v. Ashley,*supra, is erroneous. It is our duty to follow that decision.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer of the defendants to the second amended petition of the plaintiff.
Case 3:10-cv-03986-PGS-DEA Document 2 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 10
Case 3:10-cv-03986-PGS-DEA Document 2 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 11
Case 3:10-cv-03986-PGS-DEA Document 2 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 12
Case 3:10-cv-03986-PGS-DEA Document 2 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 13
v.

DANIEL SPITLER et al,

CONSENT ORDER

It is hereby Stipulated and Agreed by and between the parties hereto, namely the defendant, Daniel Spitler, by his attorney Susan C. Cassell, and the United States, by Zach Intrater and Lee Vartan, Assistant United States Attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court, that the conditions of defendant, Daniel Spitler’s bail be modified in the following manner:

(1) Defendant Daniel Spitler shall be permitted to use the Internet from a home

computer solely for purposes of seeking employment, and to communicate with his

attorney and to assist her in the preparation of his defense in this case, subject to monitoring by Pre-.Trial Services. All other terms and conditions of the defendant’s bail conditions shall remain in full force and effect.

/ s/ Zach Intrater

Zach intrater, Esq.Asst. U.S. Attorney

/s/ Lee Vartan

Lee Vartan

Asst. US. Attorney

/s/ Susan C. Cassell

usan C. Cassell, Esq.

Attorney for Daniel Spitler

Dated

SO ORDERED:

Hon Claire Cecchi

United States District Court Magistrate-Judge
#### Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. *v.*Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. (On intervention of Fagan.)1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.*

January *22,*1887.)

Railroad Companies—Negligence—Damage from Fire.

Where the evidence shows that the fire complained of originated from Sparks or other fire from a locomotive of the defendant railway company, in a manner so as to make it reasonably probable and certain enough to raise the presumption of ignorance in the operation of said engine, the defendant company will be held responsible for the damages resulting from the fire.

In Equity. On exceptions to master’s report.

*J. H. Kennard, Jr.,*for intervenor.

*W. W. Howe*and *S. S. Prentiss,*for receivers.

1

Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.

Pardee, J.

Exceptions are filed to the master’s report, to the effect that the facts do not establish a presumption of negligence against the receivers, nor a legal basis for a recovery in favor of intervenor. An examination of the evidence shows that all the circumstances point to the fact that the fire originated from sparks or other fire from engine 619 of the railway, not so strongly as to make it certain, but so as to make it reasonably probable, and certain enough to raise the presumption of negligence in the operation of the said engine. This showing is only met by evidence showing that on the morning of the day the fire occurred, July 31,1886, and four days afterwards, on August 4, 1886, the engine 619 was examined at Marshall shops, and then the condition of the stack-net, the ash-pan, and the dumper was good. The fire occurred about 190 miles west of the Marshall shops, and at least 12 hours after the first examination, and 3ü days before the second. And after the first examination, and before the fire, the engine must have traveled over that distance of 190 miles. At any time between the two examinations, while the engine was in use, the ash-pan or dumper may have been shaken into bad order. Whether the engine was examined, at any of the shops west of Marshall does not appear. The master concludes that the engineer so mismanaged the engine, not defective in its appliances, as to *527Communicate fire to the intervenor’s premises; but there is no evidence of mismanagement, and I take the master’s finding to mean that the fire was communicated by the engine, and that the evidence does not exculpate the agents of the receivers from negligence. If the receivers had shown that the engine was supplied with the best appliances for the prevention of sparks and the spread of fire, and that at the time, or immediately before and after, such appliances were in good order, it would be difficult to hold them liable in this case. As the proof is, however, I am constrained to confirm the special master’s report.

Let the exceptions be overruled, and- the report be confirmed.
PLS CPA, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONt



|
|





September 16, 2014





To Whom It May Concern:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of American Home Alliance Corporation of our report dated June 2, 2014, with respect to the balance sheets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related statements of income, cash flows, and shareholders' deficit for the fiscal years period ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, which appears on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of American Home Alliance Corporation.



Very truly yours,





---



Registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board





|
|
V. : Crim. No. 11—77

KAREEM JEFFRESS ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishinan, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Adam N. Subervi, Assistant U.S. Attorney,appearing), and defendant Kareem Jeffress (Carol Gillen, Esq.,

appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period of 60 days

to continue discovery and plea negotiations, and the defendant

being aware that he has the right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and as the defendant has

consented to such a continuance, and for good and sufficientcause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render any trial of

this matter unnecessary;
90N

:3a

a

CD

ft

CDza

CD

-J

ft

CDN

CD

CD

CD

ft

ft

CD

CD

CD

k

U’ ft ft 

N

-

0 Zr 

ft N CD 

CD M 

ft

0 CD

Q 

ft c 

>

a

0 CD ft 

ft CD N ft 

Zr fr

0 

0 CD

0

0

0

ft ft DC)

a )D —3 CD

ft 0 0 i 

ft t’i a a

U’

a ss to 

—C CD DCI CC) - ft 

a o a a Zr 

• CD 0 n CD 

DC ft ft Zr 0 Zr a Zr CD

a 

ft CD CD CD N CD 

C ft < ft CD ft 

a CD ft CD 

CD ft

- ft

0

C

a Zr ZrN

a

ft CD C ft CD CD 

CD tI CD :3 

V ft ft 

ft CD ft CD 0 

C N ft 0 C ft 

ft ft C 

0 0 C4 ft ft 

0 a C 0 Zr CD 

?3 tz

C ft 

V ft CD CD CD 

C N a to 

ft

0 (P CD -J CD

ft 3 - - CD 

C a 

U) > to CD a < 

V 0 C CD 

ft N a < ft 

ft ft ft

N 

E3 ft Zr

0 CD CD i CD 

-C H ft 

C - CD CD )a 

z C a ‘o 

a to a ‘< N 

CD

0 ft 

N ft

t ft 

ft ft (‘5 

ft - 

Zr ft ft 

CD Zr (‘5

0

0

N

0 

0)

0 ft

C 

V

C

C ft

CD to N ft 

CD Zr ft

C 

a Zr :3 

< C CD CD C N a 

:3 

CD

Ott

CO

ftC

ft

CD

att

ft

Cflft

ft ft

CD ft

ftCD

CD

CD

Zr 0

ft

CDE

ftCD

Nft

ft ft

OCD

ftC4Ca

‘0

CD
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  Quarterly  Report  of  Regal Life Concepts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November  30,  2009,  as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Xiao Wen Guan, Secretary,  Treasurer,  Principal Accounting Officer and Director
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 to the best of
my knowledge:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
<S> <C> <C>
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    (2) The information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of the Company.
<S> <C> <C>
</TABLE>



Date:   January 13, 2010


/s/ Xiao Wen Guan
XIAO WEN GUAN
Secretary, Treasurer, Principal Accounting Officer
and Director
#### PARK BRIDGE CORPORATION v. ELIAS et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 14, 1943.

Gustave Simons, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Unger & Pollack, of New York City, for defendant Raphael L. Elias.

HULBERT, District Judge.

Disposition of this motion to dismiss counterclaim has been held in abeyance until the filing of the answer.

It was stated on the argument, by counsel for the defendant Elias, that the gravamen of the counterclaim is malicious prosecution. The counterclaim itself is predicated upon the institution of this action and the proceedings therein. The cases chiefly cited, and relied upon in op*95position to the motion, arise out of actions based upon antecedent litigation which successfully terminated in favor of the person who sued for libel, slander or malicious prosecution.

It would be anomalous if, upon the trial of this action, the jury were also called upon to determine the issues raised by plaintiff’s answer to the counterclaim, and it would certainly be confusing and, perhaps, confounding to the jury.

Such a precedent would invite a practice hitherto unknown, so far as this court is aware, that would he burdensome and, it is felt, impracticable and improper.

It is, therefore, unnecessary to determine at this time whether certain allegations of the complaint are privileged and whether the counterclaim omits allegations essential to state a legal claim, as contended by the parties, respectively. Motion granted. Submit order.
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET-DEA Document 25 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 111
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET-DEA Document 25 Filed 10/12/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 112
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET-DEA Document 25 Filed 10/12/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 113
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of RADVISION Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Boaz Raviv, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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.

|/s/ Boaz Raviv*
Boaz RavivChief Executive Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

June 4, 2007

*     The originally executed copy of
this Certification will be maintained at the Companys offices and will be made
available for inspection upon request.



---

---