alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1





                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Parent
------

PVF Capital Corp.



                                           State or Other
                                           Jurisdiction of          Percentage
Subsidiaries (1)                           Incorporation            Ownership
----------------                           ---------------          ----------

Park View Federal Savings Bank             U.S.                     100%

PVF Service Corporation                    Ohio                     100%

PVF Mortgage Corp.                         Ohio                     100%

PVF Community Development Corp.            Ohio                     100%

Mid Pines Land Co.                         Ohio                     100%

PVF Holdings Inc.                          Ohio                     100%




(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 filing of the Annual Report of Stonehaven Realty Trust
(the Company) of Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002 (the
Report) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Duane H. Lund, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

| |  |                                                       
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Duane H. LundDuane H. Lund
Chief Executive Officer
|
| |  | Chief Financial Officer                               

Dated:  March 27, 2003
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3319 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, California, as the ‘‘Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3319 EH

1 SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMIAH PAUL MCCLEERY 

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 440 South Gulling Street in 

5 Portola, California, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Army Specialist Jere12 miah Paul McCleery Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3319 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postmiah Paul McCleery Post Office Building’’. Portola, California, as the ‘‘Army Specialist Jere- al Service located at 440 South Gulling Street in
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134728 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly MICHELE KASETA, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, Justices v SC: 134728 COA: 273215 Macomb CC: 05-001971-NO THEODORE BINKOW SKI and CAROL BINKOWSKI, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to app eal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals di ssenting opinion, and we REMAND this case to the Macomb Circuit Court fo r entry of a judgment of su mmary disposition in favor of the defendants.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would deny leave to appeal.

t1114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 21, 2007

Clerk
NOTE

$2,500                                                        Date: June 9, 1999


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the order of  Zamora  Funding,  Inc.,  a
Delaware  corporation,  ("Holder"),  the principal amount of $2,500.00,  payable
twenty  four (24) months  after the date first set forth  above.  The  principal
amount hereof from time to time  outstanding  shall bear interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All payments
hereunder  shall be in  lawful  money of the  United  States of  America  at the
address of the Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be  specified  by the
Holder to Archer Systems Limited, Inc.
     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.


                                         Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                         BY:/s/Richard Margulies
                                         -----------------------
                                               Richard Margulies, President

                                       3
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Payment Data Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
November 16, 2009





By:
            /s/ Michael R. LongMichael
      R. LongChief
      Executive Officer,Chief
      Financial Officerand
      Principal Accounting Officer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 27, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0259

Lower Tribunal No. 21-15066

________________

D.M., The Mother,

Appellant,

vs.

Department of Children and Families, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosy 

Aponte, Judge.

Thomas Butler, P.A., and Thomas J. Butler, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, for appellee, Department of Children and Families; 

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Krystle Cacci, 

Certified Legal Intern (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See P.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 337 So. 3d 456, 

461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (explaining that once the trial court determines 

that termination is warranted under section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, 

the court need not make a determination as to the least restrictive means); 

K.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 332 So. 3d 501, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2021) (upholding the constitutionality of section 39.806(1)(f)); J.H. v. Dep’t 

of Children & Families, 279 So. 3d 316, 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“While a 

trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear 

and convincing evidence, the district court of appeal’s review is limited to 

whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s 

findings.”).
#### Matthew Kracht, Appellant, v Town of Newburgh et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 197]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated October 30, 1996, which, *425upon reargument, denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the cross motion of the defendant Town of Newburgh for partial summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for false arrest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Christine M. Zoldak, who lived in a trailer park owned by the defendant Candlestick Associates, L.P., and managed by the defendant John Warner, complained to police officers of the defendant Town of Newburgh Police Department that the plaintiff was trespassing on her property and the trailer park property. Shortly thereafter, while he was visiting with other tenants of the trailer park, the plaintiff was arrested for trespassing. The charge was later dismissed and the plaintiff then brought this action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment.

A cause of action to recover damages for false arrest does not lie if the defendant can establish the existence of probable cause for the plaintiff’s arrest (see, *Broughton v State of New*York, 37 NY2d 451, *cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg,*423 US 929; *see also, Lui Yi v City of New York,*227 AD2d 453). In support of its cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for false arrest, the defendant Town of Newburgh presented evidence that its police officers were told by the defendant Christine M. Zoldak that the plaintiff was trespassing on the trailer park property and that she had the authority to sign a complaint against the plaintiff. She signed a complaint and the plaintiff was arrested shortly thereafter on the trailer park property.

The officers were entitled to rely upon the information provided by Zoldak (see, *Minott v City of New York,*203 AD2d 265, 267), and, upon seeing the plaintiff on the property, had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff (see, CPL 140.10 [1] [a]; see *also, People v Campbell,*215 AD2d 120, *affd*87 NY2d 855). Since the evidence was sufficient to conclusively establish probable cause for the plaintiffs arrest, the court properly granted the motion of the defendant Town of Newburgh for partial summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for false arrest.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, John Bowers, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    John S. Bowers, Jr.           
|                     |  |  |  | John S. Bowers, Jr.                  
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the quarterly report of Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q
for the period ending November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Nelson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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






February
      10, 2009
                
                /s/ Robert
      H. NelsonRobert
      H. Nelson
                  Chief
      Financial Officer


A signed
original 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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
Exhibit
      32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002











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 Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. ("the Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Nam H. Nguyen,
      Chief Financial Officer, hereby 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.








Dated:
      November 18, 2005








/s/
      Nam H. Nguyen


Nam
      H.
      Nguyen


Chief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      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.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    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; andd.
    
    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 registrants fiscal fourth quarter in the case of an annul report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and




---



##### 



a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; andb.
    
    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.
 Date: January 28, 2010
    /s/ Christopher H. AtayanChristopher H. Atayan,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
#### Karen Spector, Respondent, v Michael Spector, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 468]

—In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated May 15, 1996, as allegedly altered the provisions of a stipulation of the parties, made in open court, by (1) directing him to provide access to the marital residence to the plaintiff wife to allow removal of specified items of personalty, (2) reducing the remaining balance of a distributive award of $54,000 that the wife agreed to pay to the husband to $53,025, (3) failing to enter a judgment on the distributive award and preclud*442ing payment of interest thereon, and (4) providing that the payment of the distributive award, as reduced, be made as the wife “is leaving the marital residence with her personalty”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This case involves a dispute over the return of some personal belongings the wife left in the marital residence and the payment by her of the remaining balance of a distributive award. A stipulation of settlement entered in open court required the return of the property in exchange for staged payments of the award. Neither party fully performed under the stipulation. The husband moved for a money judgment and the wife cross-moved, *inter alia,*to compel him to deliver the remaining personal items. After a conference, the court ordered that the parties simultaneously perform their obligations pursuant to the stipulation.

The husband contends that the court altered the terms of the stipulation. We disagree. The court’s order simply enforces the terms of that stipulation requiring performance by both parties. The court’s enforcement of the stipulation was in keeping with strong policy considerations favoring stipulations of settlement *(see, Denberg v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl,*82 NY2d 375; *Matter of Badstein,*225 AD2d 691; *Hansen v Maine,*223 AD2d 675).

We have examined the husband’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Joy and Lemer, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.3


    
      

    

    
      

    

    Exhibit
      4.3

     

    

      CONVERSION
        AGREEMENT

      


      This
        Agreement executed on March
        12, 2007
        is made
        by and between Cobalis
        Corp.,
        a
        Nevada corporation (the “Company”) with its principal place of business located
        at 2445 McCabe Way, Suite 150, Irvine CA 92614 and Mark
        Rumph
        (the
“Consultant”), with an address at 8 Silkberry, Irvine, CA 92614.

      


      NOW
        THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the covenants and
        obligations set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration,
        the
        receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree
        as
        follows:

      


      Consulting
        Fees Conversion:
        The
        Consultant has rendered the IT (information technology) services to the Company
        continuously from July 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007 and has rendered 8 (eight)
        invoices (#241-248) to the Company with a balance due of $11,365 (eleven
        thousand three hundred sixty-five) as of March 1, 2007. 

      


      The
        Parties hereby agree to convert $8,865 (eight thousand eight hundred
        sixty-five), into 9,046 (nine thousand forty-six) fully-paid and non-assessable
        free trading shares, at the conversion rate of $0.98 (closing price of the
        Company’s stock on March 9, 2007) per share, upon the execution of this
        Agreement. 

      


      Furthermore,
        the Parties agree to convert $2,850 (two thousand eight hundred fifty) of
        Consultant’s fees for his future services to the Company (March-May 2007) into
        2,908 (two thousand nine hundred eight) fully-paid and non-assessable free
        trading shares, at the conversion rate of $0.98 (closing price of the Company’s
        stock on March 9, 2007) per share, upon the execution of this Agreement and
        submission of applicable invoice(s) for the actual subsequent
        services.

      


      The
        Company agrees to take immediate steps to file S-8 registration with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission in order to fulfill its obligation to
        the
        Consultant.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
        date
        first written above.

       

       

      
        	The Company
                (Cobalis,
                Corp.)	 	 	The Consultant
                (Mark
                Rumph)
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Chaslav
                Radovich	 	 	/s/ 
	
                
                  
Chaslav
                  Radovich

              	 	 	
                
Mark
                Rumph
	
                President 

              	 	 	 


      

       

       

       

      1