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

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd.

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Alpha ProTech, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer and Directorof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| DATE:  | **November 10, 2010** | ** ** | BY:    | /s/**Sheldon Hoffman**               |
|--------|----------------------------|------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | ** **                 | ** ** |   |                                 |
|   |                       |       |   | Sheldon Hoffman                      |
|   |                       |       |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 798 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 798

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of unemployment compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2003

 Mr. English (for himself, Mr. Rush, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Platts, Mr. Green 
    of Wisconsin, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Akin, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Shays, Mr. 
Sessions, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mrs. Kelly, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. McCotter, 
 and Mr. Simmons) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of unemployment compensation.

    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 ``Unemployment Tax Repeal Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TAX ON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 85 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
hereby repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Subsection (p) of section 3402 of such Code is amended 
        by striking paragraph (2) and by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
        paragraph (2).
            (2) Section 6050B of such Code (relating to returns 
        relating to unemployment compensation) is hereby repealed.
            (3) The table of sections for part II of subchapter B of 
        chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating 
        to section 85.
            (4) The table of sections for subpart B of part III of 
        subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by striking 
        the item relating to section 6050B.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts received after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Annual Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence C. Early,
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.



March 31, 2005                                  By:  /s/ Lawrence C. Early
--------------                                       --------------------------
                                                      Lawrence C. Early
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     Chief Accounting Officer
NEW WORLD FUND, INC.
                            333 South Hope Street
                        Los Angeles, California 90071
                          Telephone  (213) 486-9200

February 20, 2002

Document Control
Division of Investment Management
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20001


      Re:   New World Fund, Inc.
            File Nos. 33-67455
                      811-9105

Dear Sir or Madam:

  Pursuant to Rule 497(j), I hereby certify that no changes have been made to
the form of prospectus and Statement of Additional Information since the
electronic filing on 2/14/02 of Registrant's Post-Effective Amendment No. 6
under the Securities Act of 1933 and Amendment No. 7 under the Investment
Company Act of 1940.

      Sincerely,
      /s/ Vincent P. Corti
      Vincent P. Corti
      Secretary

/vpc

Enclosure

cc: Linda Stirling
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

** **

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Focus Enhancements, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gary L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.
| /s/ Gary L. Williams |   |
|----------------------|--------|

 

Gary L. WilliamsChief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. MC2009-27 and CP2009-37; Order No. 231]

# AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Commission Order No. 231, which addresses a new Priority Mail contract, was inadvertently submitted to the                         **Federal Register**                         for publication in the Notices category. It appeared in that category on July 16, 2009 (74 FR 34598). Order No. 231 should have been submitted for publication in the “Rules” category, as this would have effectuated an intended change in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Commission is withdrawing the referenced Notice document and is submitting Order No. 231 for publication in the appropriate category.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel, 202-789-6820 or                         *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.*

Judith M. Grady,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-17811 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
No. 973.

#### Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System et al. *v.*Agnew et al.

April 29, 1946.

*Solicitor General McGrath*and *George B. Vest*for petitioners.

*Hugh H. Obear*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted.
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 Form 10-K of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James A. Fontaine, 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) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JAMES A. FONTAINE                                                                
|James A. Fontaine Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: February 28, 2008
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-124969, 333-123816, 333-108009, 333-91072, 333-72194, 333-55520, 333-39928) on Form S-8 of Occam Networks, Inc. and subsidiary of our report dated March 10, 2006 relating to our audit of theconsolidated financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Occam Networks, Inc. and subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

March 29, 2006
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16524 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 2 2 7 - CR - RB P- J EO U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D O U G L A S L U V E L L D O S S , a .k .a . D o u g la s s D o s s , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 25, 2006) B efo re E D M O N D S O N , C h i ef Ju d g e, D U B IN A an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. BY THE C OU RT :2

G l enno n F . T hrea tt , appo i nt ed coun se l for D ou gl as L uv el l D oss i n thi s di re ct c r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e lla n t a n df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and D oss’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

30. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment

[Numbers in thousands]

Duration of unemployment

Total Full-time workers

Unemployed Percent distribution Unemployed Percent distribution

2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,314 6,001 100.0 100.0 5,052 4,843 100.0 100.0

Less than 5 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,170 2,086 34.4 34.8 1,565 1,516 31.0 31.3

5 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,876 1,789 29.7 29.8 1,519 1,459 30.1 30.1

5 to 10 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,269 1,216 20.1 20.3 1,006 977 19.9 20.2

11 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 572 9.6 9.5 513 482 10.2 10.0

15 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,268 2,126 35.9 35.4 1,968 1,868 38.9 38.6

15 to 26 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917 860 14.5 14.3 786 746 15.6 15.4

27 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,350 1,266 21.4 21.1 1,182 1,122 23.4 23.2

27 to 51 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506 504 8.0 8.4 453 447 9.0 9.2

52 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 762 13.4 12.7 729 675 14.4 13.9

Average (mean) duration, in weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 21.6 – – 24.3 23.4 – –

Median duration, in weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 9.1 – – 10.3 10.1 – –

NOTE: Full-time workers are unemployed persons looking for full-time work (35 hours or more per week) or on layoff from full-time jobs. Updated population controls are

introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values not shown where base is less than

35,000).

1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                  REPORT ON REVIEW OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of
Solo Serve Corporation

We have reviewed the interim financial information included in Form 10-Q of
Solo Serve Corporation (the Company) as of May 3, 1997 and May 4, 1996 and for
the thirteen week periods then ended.  This financial information is the
responsibility of the management of the Company.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical review
procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for
financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an
audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial information for it to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

The accompanying financial information has been prepared assuming that the
Company will continue as a going concern. The Company's recurring operating
losses raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern.  Management's plans in regard to future operations are described in
Note 2.  The financial information does not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

We previously audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards,
the consolidated balance sheet as of February 1, 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of income, of changes in stockholders' equity and of
cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report
dated May 14, 1997 (which contains an explanatory paragraph with respect to the
substantial doubt of the Company's ability to continue as a going concern) we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying balance sheet
information as of February 1, 1997, is fairly stated in all material respects
in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

San Antonio, Texas
June 16, 1996
# table14full06

&8Page &P of &N
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 Infinite Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James Villa, Acting Chief Executive 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, as amended; and





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





Dated: May 13, 2011





/s/ James VillaJames VillaActing Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this certification 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.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

HUGO QUENTAL BARROS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-1181

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed September 28, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit 

Court for Orange County,

Dan Traver, Judge.

Lisabeth J. Fryer, of Lisabeth J. Fryer, P.A., 

Lake Mary, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Hugo Quental Barros, appeals the summary denial of his motion for 

postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which

alleged one claim of newly discovered evidence. In his motion, Appellant alleges that 

one of the two victims who testified against Appellant at trial has recanted. The trial court 

summarily denied the motion finding that the recantation is not credible, and that even if 
2

it were credible, it is contradicted by the other victim’s trial testimony. We reverse, finding 

that an evidentiary hearing on this claim is necessary.

At Appellant’s trial, two witnesses testified that they were shot and identified 

Appellant as the shooter. Appellant’s motion now attaches an affidavit from one of the 

victims recanting his testimony. The recanting witness alleges that Appellant was not the 

shooter and that he was forced to identify Appellant as the shooter due to threats from 

law enforcement.

Florida courts recognize that “recantations are ‘exceedingly unreliable.’” Archer v. 

State, 934 So. 2d 1187, 1196 (Fla. 2006) (collecting cases). Thus, when a movant alleges 

newly discovered evidence in the form of recanted testimony, a movant is entitled to a 

new trial only if the trial court finds that the recantation is true and that “the witness’s 

testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict.” 

Robinson v. State, 736 So. 2d 93, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Armstrong v. State, 

642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla. 1994)). Generally, in such circumstances, an evidentiary 

hearing is required to evaluate the veracity of the recanting witness. Id.

In this case, the trial court determined the recanting witness’s credibility and 

weighed conflicting testimony based upon the proffered affidavit. Given that the affidavit

was not “inherently incredible” nor “obviously immaterial,” see Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 

519, 526 (Fla. 2009), we conclude that the trial court improperly made these 

determinations without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. 

As such, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

EVANDER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.