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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Optimal Group Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

|   | 1) | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

| Dated | August 6, 2008 |
|-------|----------------|

 

|   | By: | /s/ Neil S. Wechsler |
|--------|-----|----------------------|

|   | Neil S. Wechsler |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Co-Chairman and |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit
Fund II,  L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the year ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,  Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

Date: August 17, 2007
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

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

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Luxottica GroupS.p.A. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Enrico Cavatorta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to myknowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), that:

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

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

|        | By:    | /s/ ENRICO CAVATORTA    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Enrico Cavatorta        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated:  June 29, 2007

This writtenstatement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND 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 on Form 10-QSB of netGuru, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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, as amended; 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: February 17, 2004                     By: /s/ AMRIT K. DAS
                                                -----------------
                                                  Amrit K. Das
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (principal executive officer)

Dated: February 17, 2004                     By: /s/ BRUCE NELSON
                                                -----------------
                                                  Bruce Nelson
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (principal financial officer)

         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 required by Section 906, 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3220 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3220

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City, Minnesota, as the ``Master 
                Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MASTER SERGEANT DANIEL L. FEDDER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City, Minnesota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Master 
Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3220

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City, Minnesota, as the ``Master 
                Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office''.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Optimal Robotics Corp. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned's knowledge:

      1)    the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
            September 30, 2003 (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 30, 2003                        /s/ Neil S. Wechsler
                                               --------------------
                                                   Neil S. Wechsler
                                                   Co-Chairman and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
[959 NYS2d 384]

#### In the Matter of the Estate of Andrew B. Stroud, Also Known as Andrew Benjamin Stroud, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County,

December 26, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*W. Charles Robinson*for executor.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Lee Holzman, J.

An attorney for the executor, the decedent’s spouse and al*662leged sole interested party in this estate, submits a proposed order that citation issue seeking an in camera review and approval of his retainer and fee arrangement with the executor. Apparently, the retainer agreement relates to services that counsel will render in an action pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, from which the fiduciary’s prior counsel withdrew. The attorney was provided an opportunity to present authority in support of his contention that the court should review and approve the retainer and fee arrangement prior to the rendition of any services. The attorney submits a memorandum of law citing three decisions holding that, after the legal services were performed, the contingent retainer agreement at issue was reasonable. He also noted that SCPA 2110 (1) authorizes the court to fix and determine compensation at any time during the administration of an estate. Neither the cases cited nor the statute supports the contention that the court should review the agreement prior to the performance of any legal services *(see*SCPA 2110 [1] [“to fix . . . compensation ... for services rendered”]). Generally, fiduciaries have the ability to retain and pay counsel without court authorization *(see*EPTL 11-1.1 [b] [22]). It would be an unacceptable burden on the courts if fiduciaries were allowed to seek an advisory opinion as to the validity of the terms of every retainer agreement. This application appears to be a request for advice and direction *(see*SCPA 2107 [2], [3]), and as no basis has been demonstrated for the court to exercise its discretion to entertain the application, the court declines to do so where, as here, the court would be placing its imprimatur upon a contingent fee agreement without any knowledge with respect to its practical effect. Accordingly, this decision constitutes the order of the court declining to entertain the application, and is without prejudice to the commencement of an SCPA 2110 proceeding, if appropriate, after services are rendered.
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATIONLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpiresWashington, DCExecutive SecretaryLouis H. BlairESNA............................
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID NOVAK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF ARIZONA,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15063

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02234-JJT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

David Novak appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his state 

criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15063 

1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any basis supported by the 

record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2008). We affirm.

Dismissal with prejudice of Novak’s action against the State of Arizona was 

proper because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. 

& Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (holding that in the absence of 

consent, a suit against the State is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Novak leave to 

amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be 

given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).

AFFIRMED.
| 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 results of operations of      Registrant. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      October 13, 2010 |                                                                                          |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                                                          |
|                         | /s/Zhenyu Wang                                                                                |
|                         | Zhenyu      WangChief      Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer)                |
|                         |                                                                                          |
|                         | /s/Mingfei Yang                                                                               |
|                         | Mingfei      YangChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----
2006 ANNUAL REPORT

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Robert A. Altieri, President and ChiefExecutive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of Carrollton Bancorp (the “Registrant’),hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,that:

(1) such Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in such Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial conditions and results of operations ofCarrollton Bancorp.
| /s/ ROBERT  A. ALTIERI                   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Robert A.  Altieri                       |   |   |
| *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |   |   |
| *March 1,  2007*                    |   |   |

 

69

----
**Exhibit 13.1**

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer ofAustralia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, a public company incorporatedunder the laws of Victoria, Australia (the “Company”), hereby certifies, thatto my knowledge:

The Annual Report on Form20-F for the year ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

Dated: January 8, 2007

 

/s/ J McFarlane

J McFarlaneChief Executive Officer

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as separate disclosure document

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,277,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,391,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,391,650
<SALES>                                         96,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               461,786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                415,415
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   415,415
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10(h)



                                 The Rival Company

                      Management Incentive Compensation Plan


   Each year, under the Management Incentive Bonus Plan, the Compensation and
Stock Option Committee establishes goals relating to the Company's operating
results and establishes the minimum and maximum bonus pools that may be earned.
No bonus is paid to the Chief Executive Officer or the President if a minimum
level of budgeted operating results are not achieved. The incentive pool is
established under a formula that weights several factors including operating
income, net sales and working capital management. A majority of the incentive
pool generated by reaching the targets is distributed in cash ratably to
designated executive officers and managers at year-end based on a weighing of
positions and base salaries. The remaining portion of the incentive pool is
distributed to outstanding performers within the eligible group based on the
recommendation of the CEO to the Committee. The targeted and maximum bonuses
payable to executive officers represent a significant portion of an executive's
total compensation (25-30% of the total compensation derived from a combination
of base salary, bonus and stock options).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7491

JOE C. SPEARS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-98-405-2)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 9, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe C. Spears, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked “filed” on

September 22, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on September 25, 1998. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was physically entered on the docket

sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

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

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Spears v. Angelone, No. CA-98-405-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25,

1998).* We deny Appellant’s motion for summary judgment and

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