alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the filing by Rush Financial Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company")  of the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2004 (the "Report"),  I, Dewey M. Moore, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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.







                                                   /s/ Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  May 20, 2004








                                       29
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-13-00774- CV
Xer ox State and Local Sol utions, I nc. and Rals ton Russell, App ellants
v. Stellargy Servic es, LLC, Appellee
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 3-0 0340 4, H ONO RAB LE ERIC SH EP P ERD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N Appellants have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss t h i s appea l. We g rant appellants’ motion and dismiss the appea l. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion Filed: January

3, 2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TODD LAMAR MOSS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-98-610, CA-99-1588)

Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Lamar Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Todd Lamar Moss seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Moss, Nos. CR-98-610; CA-99-1588

(D.S.C. June 17, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

In connection with the Form 10-QSB of DirectView, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Robbins,
President 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 and belief:

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

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

/s/Jeffrey Robbins
--------------------
   Jeffrey Robbins
   President

May 22, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7934

MICHAEL LANE MCHONE, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00775-TDS-DPD)

Submitted: July 26, 2010 Decided: August 19, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lane Mchone, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lane Mchone, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Mchone has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Certification of the Chief 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 Northeast Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,that:

(1)   The Report 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 Company.

|February 13, 2003 | /s/ Robert S. Johnson  
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | Robert S. Johnson      
|                  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      21.1





List
      of
      Subsidiaries





As
      stated
      in the footnotes to the financial statements and as of December 31. 2007, the
      following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries:




Sinoenergy
      Holding Limited, a British Virgin Island corporation, 100% owned by Sinoenergy
      Corporation




Qingdao
      Sinogas General Machinery Limited Corporation, a corporation organized under
      the
      law of the People's Republic of China, 100% owned by Sinoenergy Holding Limited
      ("Sinogas").




The
      following subsidiaries are organized under the laws of the People's Republic
      of
      China and are majority owned by Sinogas:




Pingdingshan
      Sinoenergy Gas Company- 90% owned





Wuhan
      Sinoenergy Gas Company- 90% owned





Sinogas
      Yuhan Chemical Equipment Ltd. - 90% owned





Jiaxing
      Lixun Automotive Electronic Co, Ltd - 70% owned





Anhui
      Gagher Energy Company - 55% owned





The
      following companies are organized under the laws of the People's Republic of
      China and Sinogas has a minority interest:




Hubei
      Gagher Energy Company - 45% owned





Xuancheng
      Sinoenergy Vehicle Gas Company - 30% owned
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 761 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 761

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
  Veterans' Affairs to provide adapted housing assistance to disabled 
 members of the Armed Forces who remain on active duty pending medical 
                              separation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2003

  Mr. Evans (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. 
    Filner, Mr. Renzi, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
   Michaud, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Langevin, and Mr. Sanders) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
  Veterans' Affairs to provide adapted housing assistance to disabled 
 members of the Armed Forces who remain on active duty pending medical 
                              separation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disabled Servicemembers Adapted 
Housing Assistance Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE ADAPTED HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN 
              DISABLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO REMAIN ON ACTIVE 
              DUTY.

    Section 2101 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c)(1) The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection (a) 
to a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who is suffering 
from a disability described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of that 
subsection if such disability is the result of an injury incurred or 
disease contracted in or aggravated in line of duty in the active 
military, naval, or air service. Such assistance shall be provided to 
the same extent as assistance is provided under that subsection to 
veterans eligible for assistance under that subsection and subject to 
the requirements of the second sentence of that subsection.
    ``(2) The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection (b) to 
a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who is suffering 
from a disability described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) 
of that subsection if such disability is the result of an injury 
incurred or disease contracted in or aggravated in line of duty in the 
active military, naval, or air service. Such assistance shall be 
provided to the same extent as assistance is provided under such 
subsection to veterans eligible for assistance under that subsection 
and subject to the requirements of paragraph (2) of that subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      50,000
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               5,938,223
<CASH>                                         648,021
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          48,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,296,834
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              4,486,059
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             29,169
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 64,621
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    156,870
<COMMON>                                        30,970
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,110,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,296,834
<PREMIUMS>                                     419,095
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            187,055
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,933
<OTHER-INCOME>                               2,843,140
<BENEFITS>                                     178,906
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    116,315
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           383,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (242,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   152,747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (395,614)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                (91,674)
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            152,747
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Hayes M. CASSIDY v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 26483.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 14, 1960.

B. Nathaniel Richter, Richter, Lord & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Philip Price, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KRAFT, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought' this action under Federal Employers’ Liability, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq., and Safety Appliance Acts, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., for damages for injuries allegedly suffered by him on April 11,1959. He was examined by two of defendant’s doctors on April 13, 1959. He was discharged June 5, 1959 for failure to return to duty. Plaintiff has otherwise been treated by his own physicians. Defendant has moved under F.R.Civ.P. 34, 28 U.S.C.A., for the production, for inspection and copying, of all reports received by plaintiff of medical examinations or treatments for the injuries allegedly suffered on April 11 and for.an order requiring plaintiff to authorize defendant to inspect and copy hospital records relating to the admission, examination, treatment and discharge of the plaintiff for the same injuries.

Defendant has offered to furnish plaintiff authentic copies of all medical reports received by defendant from its doctors relating to the plaintiff’s alleged injuries of April 11, but plaintiff has refused the proffered interchange. We conclude that defendant’s motion should be granted. Gordon v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., D. C., 5 F.R.D. 510; Currie v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., D.C., 23 F.R.D. 660.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 31, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 0176

Lower Tribunal No. 16

- 28069

________________



### Khamal Ellison

, Appellant,

vs.



### Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, etc.

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Alan Fine , Judge.

Khamal Ellison

, in proper person

.

Trou tman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, and Amber Kourofsky (Atlanta, GA) , for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure2 9.315(a) (“After service of the initial brief .

. . the court may summarily affirm

the order to be reviewed if the court finds that no preliminary basis for

reversal has been demonstrated.”).

Affirme d.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**

(Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a))

 

I, Brett Moyer, certify that: 

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this Form 10-Q of Focus Enhancements, Inc.; 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 15, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/    | Brett Moyer       |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|
|   |   |              |   |
|   |   | Brett Moyer       |
|   |   | President and CEO |

 

----
[No. 31596-3-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. K.R., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 02-8-00063-3, James E. Warme, J., entered May 13, 2004. *Dismissed*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, C.J., concurred in by Houghton, J., and Morgan, J. Pro Tem.
Exhibit 23.1



Independent Auditors Consent



The Board of Directors

Exult, Inc.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-100927, 333-38384 and 333-38390) on Form S-8 of Exult,
Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated January 27, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss,
stockholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related consolidated financial statement schedule for the year ended December 31, 2002, which reports appear in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Exult,
Inc. and subsidiaries.



Our reports dated January
27, 2003, state that the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and for each of the years in the two-year period then ended were audited by other
auditors who have ceased operations. Those auditors expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements in their report dated January 23, 2002. As described in Note 3, the 2000 and 2001 consolidated financial statements have
been restated. We audited the adjustments described in Note 3 that were applied to restate the 2000 and 2001 consolidated financial statements, as well as certain additional disclosures in the 2000 and 2001 consolidated financial statements, as
described in Note 3. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2000 and 2001 consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries other than with respect
to such adjustments and disclosures.



|            
|------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP

Orange County, California

February 13, 2003



The following consent of Arthur Andersen LLP is a copy of the original consent dated March 28, 2002 rendered by Arthur Andersen LLP in our
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, and has not been reissued by Arthur Andersen LLP since that date. We are including this copy of the Arthur Andersen LLP consent pursuant to Rule 2-02(e) of Regulation S-X under the
Securities Act of 1933.



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public
accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Companys previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 333-38384 and 333-38390.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
|                       

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Orange County, California

March 28, 2002