alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northeast Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), James D. Delamater, as Chief Executive 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.

|May 14, 2003 | /s/ James D. Delamater
|------------ | ----------------------
|             | James D. Delamater    
|             | President and CEO
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 756



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I No. CR-12-782 TYRONE JAMES CAMPBELL APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE Opinion Delivered December 18, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. CR-2011-685] HONORABLE J. MICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE REBRIEFING ORDERED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, JudgeTyrone James Campbell appeals from his Sebastian County first-degree terroristicthreatening conviction, alleging numerous errors were committed at trial and during jury deliberations. We do not reach the merits of Campbell’s arguments, however, because we must order rebriefing to correct abstracting deficiencies. See Robison v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 262. In his abstract of trial testimony, Campbell has included a significant amount of testimony in question-and-answer format, rather than a condensed summary of such testimony as is required by our rules. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) clearly states that “[t]he question-and-answer format shall not be used.” Campbell’s abstract violates this provision. Campbell has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief thatCite as 2013 Ark. App. 756

complies with the rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We strongly encourage Campbell’s counsel to review the rules and to ensure that no other deficiencies are present prior to filing the substituted brief. Failure to timely correct the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief may result in the judgment of the circuit court being affirmed for noncompliance with the rule. SeeArk. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). After service of appellant’s substituted brief, appellee shall have the opportunity to revise or supplement its brief in the time prescribed by the clerk, or to rely on the brief that it previously filed in this appeal. Rebriefing ordered. G LADWIN , C.J., and P ITTMAN , J., agree. Mosemarie Dora Boyd , for appellant. Dustin McDaniel , Att’y Gen., by: Laura Shue , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
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-QSB of DirectView, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the six months ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Robbins, 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, 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
Chief Executive Officer
August 17, 2005

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.
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 Annual Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the year ending January 1, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nolan Bushnell, Chief Executive
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, 2008
            By:
      /s/ Nolan K
      BushnellNolan
      K. BushnellChief
      Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zavien Lenoy CANADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7383.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Zavien Lenoy Canada, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Zavien Lenoy Canada appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Canada,*No. 6:09-cr-00415-GRA-1 (D.S.C. July 24, 2012). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 8041** 

TERRY L.S. DORSEY , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden; J. DADDYSMAN, Sergeant , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. George L
. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00285

- GLR )

Submitted : April 23, 2013 Decided: May 1, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Terry Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

- Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
T erry Dorsey appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Dorsey v. Morgan , No. 1:12

- cv - 00285

- GLR (D. Md. Nov. 15, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
# 19summ1_00
[No. 23568-8-III.

Division Three.

November 1, 2005.]

#### Dale Morrison et al., *Respondents,*v. Basin Asphalt Co. et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 03-2-50403-6, Carrie L. Runge, J., entered November 2, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, C.J., concurred in by Brown, J., and Thompson, J. Pro Tern. Now published at 131 Wn. App. 158.
Opinion issued October 2 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 9 - 00 226 - CV

——————————— SHERI GRIFFITH , Appellant

V. THE KROGER CO. , Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Case No. 1116193

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Sheri Griffith , has neither paid the required filing fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before2

the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss the appe al for want of prosecution for nonpayment of required fees. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Goodman, and Countiss
.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0658 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. COLTER HELTON HENRY,

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 1 4 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

June 7 2023

06/07/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0658
#### E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS *&*COMPANY v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY and Phillips Chemical Company.

Civ. A. No. 2006.

United States District Court D. Delaware.

Nov. 30, 1959.

See 24 F.R.D. 416.

William S. Megonigal, Jr., of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Del., W. Philip Churchill, of Fish, Richardson & Neave, New York City, Edward B. Beale, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Thomas Cooch, of Connolly, Cooch & Bove, Wilmington, Del., Thorley von Holst, Sidney Neuman, and Donald A. Peterson, of Olson, Mecklenburger, von Holst, Pendleton & Neuman, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

The defendants seek to obtain the documents relating to the test results on products made in accordance with the Larchar-Pease patent, which tests were made later than the cut-off date contained in Paragraph 1 of the motion to produce. The Court was unaware that there was any controversy on this point since only Subparagraph l(n) of the defendants’ Rule 34 motion was argued to the Court. In my discussion of that paragraph, and particularly of the “work product” objection, I pointed out that I did not think that this cut-off date was a valid one and that information obtained thereafter should be produced. The limitation placed on Paragraph 15 at the request of the plaintiff was not intended to be narrower than the agreed to order on Paragraph 1 where it did agree to produce the same type of information as that which the defendants now seek. Paragraph (J), Subparagraph (a), will be modified so as to order the production of documents relating to tests of products made by the process described in the Larchar-Pease patent.

The request to modify Subparagraph (b) of Paragraph (J) will be denied for reasons stated in my opinion of September 14, 1959, D.C., 24 F.R.D. 416, which I deem sufficient.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO RULE 13a  14(a) UNDER THE  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Home Diagnostics, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 periods covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)):
 (a)
    
    Designed such
disclosure controls
and procedures, or
caused such
disclosure controls
and procedures to
be designed under
our supervision, to
ensure that
material
information
relating to the
registrant,
including its
consolidated
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 controls
and procedures and
presented in this
report our
conclusions about
the effectiveness
of the disclosure
controls and
procedures, as of
the end of the
period covered by
this report based
on such evaluation;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this
report any change
in the registrants
internal control
over financial
reporting that
occurred during the
registrants most
recent fiscal
quarter (the
registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in
the case of an
annual report) that
has materially
affected, or is
reasonably likely
to materially
affect, the
registrants
internal control
over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant
deficiencies and
material weaknesses
in the design or
operation of
internal control
over financial
reporting which are
reasonably likely
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 or other
employees who have
a significant role
in the registrants
internal control
over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ J. Richard Damron, Jr.J. Richard Damron, Jr.President  and  Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Director
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 28, 2009 

s0721 

Order 

 

July 28, 2009 

139114 

_________________________________________ 

In re ALEXANDER MITCHELL, NATHAN 

MITCHELL, and NICHOLAS MITCHELL, 

Minors. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 139114 

 COA: 286895 

Clinton CC Family Division: 

06-019136-NA 

WILLIAM MITCHELL, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Clinton County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days of the 

date of this order. 

 The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1
 Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
  1.
    
    I, James Blake, am the Chief Executive Officer of Kowloon-Canton
Railway Corporation (the Corporation).2.
    
    To my knowledge:
 (A)
    
    The Corporations Form 20-F accompanying this Certification, in the
form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act); and(B)
    
    The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Corporation.
  /s/ James BlakeName:
    James BlakeTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00058-CV

DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.; Bexar County Emergency Service 

District No. 5; and Bexar County Emergency Service District No. 10,

Appellants

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-26125

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the opinion and judgment issued by 

this court on May 18, 2022, are WITHDRAWN. The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Costs are assessed against appellants.

SIGNED September 21, 2022.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
EX-32
       SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JAMES H. ALEXANDER

                      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of World Am, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to his 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.


Dated: October 12, 2005                /s/ James H. Alexander
                                       James H. Alexander
                                       President/Chief Executive Officer
                                       (principal financial officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2282
ROBERT CARLYLE BERRETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRACE INEZ ELMO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1428-DKC) Submitted: April 20, 2001 Decided: May 1, 2001Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Carlyle Berrett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Robert Carlyle Berrett appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and agree that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Berrett v. Elmo , No. CA-98-1428-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 14, 2000). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS CONTAINED IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 27,1996.
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<CASH>                                          33,543
<SECURITIES>                                    33,803
<RECEIVABLES>                                      733
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,292
<PP&E>                                          26,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,000
<BONDS>                                         45,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,234
<SALES>                                          4,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,605
<CGS>                                            2,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.97)
        

</TABLE>
[No. 54551-5-I.

Division One.

October 24, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Johnny Ray Smith, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 95-1-00519-4, Susan K. Cook, J., entered August 4, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137910 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137910 

 COA: 274752 

Wayne CC: 06-005298-01 

BRUCE CARL TONEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.