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











This
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
      (the “Form 10-QSB”) for the period ended March 31, 2007 of Chase Packaging
      Corporation (the “Company”). I, Allen McInnes, President and Principal Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:





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





(2)  The
      information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











/s/
      Allen McInnes


Allen
      McInnes


President
      & Principal Executive Officer


May
      15,
      2007
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 2328** 

ROBERT ALAN BERKOWITZ ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The; WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.; BANK OF ANDERSON, NA; CARECREDIT, INCORPORATED

- GE MONEY COM PANY; CITY OF ANDERSON; BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MISSOURI; CIGNA HEALTHCARE BENEFITS, INCORPORATED; CIGNA CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LEASING CORPORATION; BARTON R. BRIGHT, I II, a/k/a Chip; NATIONAL PROCESSING COMPANY; GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INCORPORATED; ELAVON, INCORPORATED; CHASE PAYMENTECH; BANK OF AMERICA; FIFTH THIRD BANK OPERATIONS; LEGAL ENTRY MD IMOC2Q; FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES CORPORATION; HPSC, INCORPORATED

- GE HEALT HCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES; GREAT AMERICAN LEASING CORPORATION; DF SERVICES, LLC , Respondents

– Appellees,

and

PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INCORPORATED , Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:09

- cv
- 00651

- HMH

- BHH )

Submitted : October 19, 2010 Decided: October 25, 20102 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert A lan Berkowitz , Appellant Pro Se. George John Conits, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina; Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Robert Alan Berkowitz seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying in part and granting in part the United
States’ motion to dismiss some, but not all, of the respondents

in his petition to quash summon ses issued by th e Internal
Revenue Service upon third

- party record

- keepers . This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Ben eficial
Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order

Berkowitz seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTONIO S. WARREN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 15 88

[ November 19, 2020 ]

Appeal of order dismissing rule 3.850 amended motion from the Circuit

Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A.

Schwab

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562015 CF 001896

.

Antonio S. Warren

, Miami , pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

F ORST

, K UNTZ and A RTAU

, JJ. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Majiman HAFIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16746.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 7, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 22, 2010.

*71Mahesi Kumar Bajoria, Law Offices of Mahesh Bajoria, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sunny S. Huo, Esquire, Kalama M. LuiKwan, Esquire, Joshua E. Whitehair, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, Justin Donald Balser, Akerman Senterfitt, Denver, CO, Robert W. Norman, Jr., Lukasz Iwo Wozniak, Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RYMER and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON,** District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Majiman Hafiz appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to remand. A district court’s denial of a motion to remand for lack of removal jurisdiction is reviewed *de novo. United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT & T Corp.,*298 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir.2002).

Hafiz sought remand on the ground that not all defendants had consented to removal. The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendant Marin Conveyancing Corporation (“Marin”) had implicitly consented, that Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) was not required to consent because it had been voluntarily dismissed, and that Defendant Quality Loan Services, Corp. (“Quality”) was a nominal party not required to consent. *Hafiz v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc.,*652 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1052-53 (N.D.Cal.2009). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the district court’s ruling.

The district court dismissed Hafiz’s action for failure to state a claim, and Hafiz appealed only her denial of remand. When a judgment is made on the merits, an appellate court is not required to remand if procedural defects in removal were cured before entry of judgment. *72*Parrino v. FHP, Inc.,*146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir.1998), *citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis,*519 U.S. 61, 77, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996).

We agree that Defendant Marin’s consent was implied because Marin shared counsel with defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding (“Greenpoint”), which had timely consented, and Marin and Green-point jointly moved for dismissal. Any defect in Defendant MERS’s consent was cured by the time judgment was entered because MERS did consent (albeit late) and because Hafiz voluntarily dismissed MERS from the action prior to judgment.

Finally, Defendant Quality was a nominal party and not required to consent. Under *Parrino,*reversal and remand to state court is unnecessary because any procedural defects were cured before a judgment on the merits was entered.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51448 Conference Calendar

REGINA KELLY; CORVIAN WORKMAN; MILTON JEROME DUNN; JOHNNY HAMMOND; QUINCY HIGGINS; MICHAEL WELLS; FREDERICK DWAINE SEYMORE; DONAL EDDINGTON; DARREL DEWAYNE GRAY; CLIFFORD EUGENE RUNOALDS; CORNELIUS WORKMAN; QUINTON SMITH; DARIUS MOTEN; CARLTON STEELS; ROBERT TAYLOR, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus JOHN PASCHALL, ET AL., Defendants, SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL NARCOTICS TASK FORCE, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-03-CV-179

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The plaintiffs in this civil rights action filed a notice of appeal from an order of the district court dismissing fewer than all of the claims and parties. They seek to appeal the dismissal of the South Central Texas Regional Narcotics Task Force (“the Task Force”).No. 03-51448 -2- This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). This court has authority to hear appeals from “final decisions” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions, nonfinal judgments certified as final under F ED . R. C IV . P. 54(b), and some other nonfinal orders and judgments to which an exception applies. See Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters. , 170 F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 1999). The plaintiffs argue that the district court’s orderdismissing the Task Force is appealable under the collateralorder doctrine. See Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 524-25 (1985). Because the district court’s order dismissing the Task Force “is capable of being fully and effectively reviewed after final judgment,” the collateral order doctrine is inapplicable, and this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Thompson
v. Betts , 754 F.2d 1243, 1246 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the appeal is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; STAY DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I,
Louis D. Paolino, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mace Security International, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 period
covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual 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 annual
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(c)) for
the registrant and we have: 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, ismade known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 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 controls over financial reporting. Date:
March 28, 2005 /s/ Louis D. Paolino, Jr.Louis D. Paolino, Jr.Chief Executive Officer and President
2010-0100.

#### Robinson v. State.

Hamilton App. No. C-090002. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I, II, III, IV, and VI; cause held for the decision in 2008-2502, *State v. Bodyke,*Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; and briefing schedule stayed.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and O’Donnell, JJ., also voted to accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. V.

Motion for stay of jurisdictional consideration denied as moot.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Scott Wheeler, certifythat:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this Form 10-K of Monterey Gourmet Foods 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 such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

IDisclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, 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 design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:                    | March 25, 2005 |   |   |
|--------------------------|----------------|--------|--------|
|                     |
|                     |
| /s/ SCOTT  WHEELER       |           |
| Scott Wheeler            |
| Chief Financial  Officer |
|                          |                |        |        |  |

 

1

----
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 NB Manufacturing, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Lazzeri, President and Director 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,:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d),as applicable, 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.

Date:    March 27, 2009

/s/ Robert Lazzeri
------------------
Robert Lazzeri
President and Director


<PAGE>
|    |                                                                                                                       |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 M. Trimble                  |   | November 1, 2012 |
| James M. Trimble                      |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |
|                                  |   |   |
| /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                  |   | November 1, 2012 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                      |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer               |   |   |
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20141

Conference Calendar

__________________

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEP'T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

INSTITUTIONAL DIV.; TEXAS BOARD

OF PARDONS & PAROLES,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-5741

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Robert Parker appeals the dismissal as frivolous of

his civil rights complaint. He does not challenge the district

court's imposition of sanctions. Therefore, that issue is deemed

abandoned on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th

Cir. 1994).

For essentially the same reasons on which the district court

relied, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion
No. 96-20141

-2-

in dismissing Parker's complaint as frivolous. See Parker v.

Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice - Institutional Div., No. H-95-

5741 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 1996).

This appeal is frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This

opinion does not lessen the warning of sanction given to Parker

on this day in Parker v. Highland Ins., No. 96-20118. We again

caution Parker as to the consequences if he continues to waste

judicial resources by bringing frivolous appeals.

APPEAL DISMISSED. ADMONITION ISSUED.
#### Jerome T. HAMPTON, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2011-7032.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2011.

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, Topeka, KS, for Claimant-Appellant.

Alex P. Hontos, Department of Justice, David J. Barrans, Brian D. Griffin, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Jerome to Hampton moves without opposition to stay proceedings in this appeal pending the court’s disposition of *Bond v. DVA,*2010-7096.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is denied. Hampton’s opening brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         234,821
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,467,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                   873,083
<INVENTORY>                                  6,921,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,518,870
<PP&E>                                      12,223,096
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,614,332)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,855,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,507,208
<BONDS>                                      6,169,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,701
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,855,841
<SALES>                                     10,597,343
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,463,764
<CGS>                                        5,411,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,332,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             294,891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,160,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   440,860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (719,296)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)



</TABLE>