alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 411.150 Can I reassign my ticket? ( a ) If you previously assigned your ticket and your ticket is no longer assigned (see § 411.145), you may reassign your ticket, unless you are receiving benefit payments under § 404.316(c), § 404.337(c), § 404.352(d) or § 404.1597a of this chapter, or you are receiving disability or blindness benefit payments under § 416.996 or § 416.1338 of this chapter (the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section notwithstanding). If you previously assigned your ticket to an EN, you may reassign your ticket to a different EN which is serving under the program and is willing to provide you with services, or you may reassign your ticket to a State VR agency acting as an EN if you are eligible to receive VR services under 34 CFR 361.42. If you previously assigned your ticket to a State VR agency acting as an EN, you may reassign your ticket to an EN which is serving under the program and is willing to provide you with services, or to another State VR agency acting as an EN if you are eligible to receive VR services under 34 CFR 361.42.
( b ) In order for you to reassign your ticket to an EN or State VR agency, all of the following requirements must be met: ( 1 ) Your ticket must be unassigned. If your ticket is assigned to an EN or a State VR agency, you must first tell the PM in writing that you want to take your ticket out of assignment (see § 411.145).
( 2 ) ( i ) You and a representative of the new EN must agree to and sign a new IWP; or
( ii ) If you wish to reassign your ticket to a State VR agency, you and a representative of the State VR agency must agree to and sign both an IPE and a form that provides the information described in § 411.385(a)(1), (2) and (3).
( 3 ) You must meet the requirements of § 411.125(a)(1) and (2) on or after the day you and a representative of the new EN sign your IWP or you and a representative of the State VR agency sign your IPE and the required form. You may reassign your ticket within 90 days of the effective date your ticket was no longer assigned, without meeting the requirements of § 411.125(a)(2).
( 4 ) A representative of the EN must submit a copy of the signed IWP to the PM or a representative of the State VR agency must submit the completed and signed form (as described in § 411.385(a) and (b)) to the PM.
( 5 ) The PM must receive the copy of the IWP or received the required form, as appropriate.
( c ) If all of the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are met, we will consider your ticket reassigned to the new EN or State VR agency. The effective date of the reassignment of your ticket will be the first day on which the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), (2) and (3) of this section are met. See §§ 411.160 through 411.225 for an explanation of how reassigning your ticket may affect medical reviews that we conduct to determine if you are still disabled under our rules.
[66 FR 67420, Dec. 28, 2001, as amended at 73 FR 29340, May 20, 2008]
(No. 7083

#### W. T. Grant Company, Store No. 1106, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 25, 1973.*

W. T. Grant Company, Store No. 1106, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Gama Charters Inc. Sikorsky Memorial Airport

700 Great Meadow Road

Stratford, CT 06615

t: +1 203 385 3426

f: +1 203 380 6639

www.gamacharters.com Ref: Petition for CL604 Exemption

Request for an Exemption from 14 CFR 135.152 "Appendix F to Part 135

— Airplane Flight Recorder

Specification", specifically the requirement to meet the parameter "5. Normal acceleration (Vertical)"

sampling rate of 8 times per second. This is due to being advised that certain DFDR systems

installed in CL604 aircraft by Bombardier have been found to only sample this specific parameter at

5 times per se cond.

The request is a request for relief so that affected aircraft may continue to operate while Bombardier

engineers a solution to the issue. The DFDR is a recording tool and does not affect the safe

operation of the aircraft. It is an important tool for accident investigations, and even though does not

meet the specific parameters for 14 CFR 135 operations, it does exceed what is required for 14

CFR 91 operations, and will still continue to provide useful data if needed.

We operate these aircraft under our Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate O2GA970i and request this exemption

be granted until Bombardier is able to define a modification for this requirement.

We operate three CL604 aircraft: N604VG sn5562, N848CC sn5660, N868CC sn5662.

Sincerely

,

Martin Farrar

Director of Maintenance
Exhibit 31.1
  CERTIFICATION
  I, Eric I. Richman, hereby certify that:
  1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of PharmAthene, Inc. (the “Company”); and
  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 period covered by this report.
   Date: April 29, 2011/s/ Eric I. RichmanEric I. RichmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
§ 618.876 Verification of eligibility for program benefits. ( a ) *Overall program eligibility.* In addition to all other eligibility criteria contained in this part, an individual must also be authorized to work in the United States to receive benefits under the TAA Program. States are required to verify the status of participants who are not a citizen or national of the United States.
( b ) *Initial verification.* All States are required, under section 1137(d) of SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)), to initially verify the immigration status of self-reporting aliens who apply for UI through the system designated by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (or USCIS), currently the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (or SAVE) program. No further verification is required except as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Reverification.* ( 1 ) Once a State has verified satisfactory immigration status initially, the State must reverify the worker's immigration status if the documentation provided during initial verification will expire during the period in which that worker is potentially eligible to receive benefits under this subchapter.
( 2 ) The State must conduct such redetermination in a timely manner, using the immigration status verification system described in section 1137(d) of SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)) or by review of other documentation, as described in that provision.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-4218.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 2006.

Decided Feb. 16, 2006.

*99Gary T. Bell, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James N. Thiros, Cohen *&*Thiros, Merrillville, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, and Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Bernard Hawkins again appeals his 151-month sentence for assaulting a federal law enforcement officer, reimposed by the district court after we remanded for resentencing in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Hawkins again argues that he was entitled to have a jury determine whether he is a career offender for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. We rejected this argument in Hawkins’s first appeal, citing *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and also *United States v. Lewis,*405 F.3d 511, 513-14 (7th Cir.2005), which reaffirmed that the determination of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of a guidelines recidivist enhancement is a legal rather than factual determination. Even if *Almendarez-Torres*were overruled, Hawkins’s argument would be a loser; this case involves a guidelines (not statutory) recidivist enhancement, and guidelines calculations are governed by the remedial opinion in *Booker. See United States v. Woodard,*408 F.3d 396 (7th Cir.2005).

Hawkins also renews his argument that his prior escape conviction cannot be considered a crime .of violence because it was only a “walkaway” escape (from a halfway house), not a forcible escape. We rejected this argument last time, too, having previously held that escape is categorically a crime of violence under the guidelines. *See United States v. Bryant,*310 F.3d 550, 554 (7th Cir.2002).

Hawkins’s 151-month sentence is within a properly calculated guidelines range and is reasonable. Hawkins objects to the increased range produced by application of the career offender enhancement, but that’s not a ground on which a sentence is unreasonable. To the contrary, Congress requires career offenders to be sentenced near the statutory máximums. *See*28 U.S.C. § 994(h). The United States would have had a solid argument that a 151-month sentence is too low (the statutory maximum is 240 months); it can’t be called too high.

AFFIRMED.
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

CHINOOK SALMON REPORT

June 2012

Note: Shaded area not verified with DFG data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Winter Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Spring Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily 

Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In C

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,392 1,570 

2-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,392 1,664 

3-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,392 1,387 

4-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,392 1,517 

5-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,392 1,552 

6-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,392 1,579 

7-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,392 1,533 

8-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0003 0 3 290 2,395 1,552 

9-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,552 

10-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,552 

11-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,552 

12-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,553 

13-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,387 

14-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,486 

15-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 181 

16-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 961 

17-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 553 

18-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 876 

19-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,013 

20-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,017 

21-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 693 

22-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,551 

23-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,552 

24-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,547 

25-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,538 

26-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 1,482 

27-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 2,315 

28-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 2,414 

29-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 2,051 

30-Jun-12 0000 0 0 1,156 2,081 0000 0 0 290 2,395 3,469 

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,156 2,081 0 0 0 3 0 3 290 2,395 44,649 6

Winter Run Incidental Take Levels (Oct 1 thru May 31) Spring Run Incidental Take Levels for Season Combined Total (Oct 1 thru Jun 30)

Banks Tr
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Low-flow characteristics forselected streams in Indiana**
 
Report | TableOne |Table Two
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.42/4-4:2014-5242
Item Number:0624-B-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000942211
 
April 23, 2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,035.70

 1,035.48

 1,035.30

 1,034.96

 1,034.63

 1,034.31

 1,034.10

 1,033.76

 1,033.42

 1,032.96

 1,032.64

 1,032.44

 1,032.09

 1,031.95

 1,031.54

 1,031.46

 1,031.46

 1,031.77

 1,031.86

 1,031.89

 1,031.74

 1,031.70

 1,031.48

 1,031.40

 1,031.36

 1,031.25

 1,031.00

 1,030.77

 1,030.58

 1,030.31

 1,029.84

 3,679.6

 3,673.9

 3,669.2

 3,660.4

 3,651.9

 3,643.6

 3,638.2

 3,629.4

 3,620.7

 3,608.9

 3,600.7

 3,595.5

 3,586.6

 3,583.0

 3,572.6

 3,570.5

 3,570.5

 3,578.4

 3,580.7

 3,581.5

 3,577.7

 3,576.6

 3,571.0

 3,569.0

 3,568.0

 3,565.2

 3,558.8

 3,553.0

 3,548.2

 3,541.3

 3,529.4

STORAGE

-7.5

-5.7

-4.7

-8.8

-8.5

-8.3

-5.4

-8.8

-8.7

-11.8

-8.2

-5.1

-9.0

-3.6

-10.4

-2.0

+0.0

+7.9

+2.3

+0.8

-3.8

-1.0

-5.6

-2.0

-1.0

-2.8

-6.4

-5.8

-4.8

-6.8

-11.9

CHANGE

 4,361

 4,668

 4,871

 3,369

 3,307

 4,222

 5,632

 3,794

 3,988

 3,292

 4,383

 5,608

 4,007

 6,482

 2,371

 5,984

 7,321

 10,240

 8,383

 8,568

 4,831

 5,924

 3,959

 5,577

 6,047

 4,711

 3,903

 5,200

 5,732

 5,358

 3,352

INFLOW

 7,929

 7,358

 7,137

 7,614

 7,447

 8,172

 8,133

 7,967

 8,238

 8,953

 8,264

 8,144

 8,463

 8,127

 7,455

 6,899

 7,179

 6,230

 7,129

 8,093

 6,645

 6,220

 6,574

 6,409

 6,344

 5,899

 6,880

 7,884

 7,944

 8,628

 9,168

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 229

 191

 91

 205

 160

 220

 235

 242

 159

 302

 248

 45

 60

 158

 180

 112

 142

 30

 98

 90

 112

 217

 210

 195

 217

 224

 232

 254

 216

 179

 178

C.F.S.

 .30

 .25

 .12

 .27

 .21

 .29

 .31

 .32

 .21

 .40

 .33

 .06

 .08

 .21

 .24

 .15

 .19

 .04

 .13

 .12

 .15

 .29

 .28

 .26

 .29

 .30

 .31

 .34

 .29

 .24

 .24

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .31

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .37

 1.03

 .35

 .37

 .00

 .32

 1.03

 .60

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .68

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2020 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 4, 2020

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS -157.4 159,445 233,526 0 0 5,431 7.22 5.12

ACRE-FEET -157,400 316,259 463,199 0 0 10,772

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 463,199

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 463,199

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 5.12

JULY 1, 2019 35.68

 3,687.2

Table 3

OCT 1, 2019 TO DATE = 34.34
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I, Michael L. Paxton, ChiefFinancial Officer of Intrusion Inc., certify that:

 

(1)                          I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Intrusion Inc.:

 

(2)                          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

(3)                          Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

(4)                          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

(5)                          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(c)              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 13, 2004 | /s/ Michael L. Paxton   |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                             | Michael L. Paxton       |
|                             | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
(No. 4352

#### Thomas Kehoe, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 8, 1951.*

Hugh J. McCarthy, Attorney for Claimant.

Ivan. A. Elliott, Attorney General; William II. Sumpter, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*291Lansdeh, J.

Claimant, Thomas Kehoe, seeks to recover from respondent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for injuries that resulted from an accident that arose out .of and in the course of his employment as a steamfitter at the Chicago State Hospital, operated by the Department of Public Welfare.

On November 10, 1949, claimant dropped a piece of pipe about three feet long on his left big toe fracturing the proximal phalange thereof. He was temporarily and totally disabled for 12 days, for which period he was paid compensation at the rate of $22.50 per week.

No jurisdictional questions are involved, and the sole question to be determined is the nature and extent of his disability.

Claimant has a pair of bad feet. He has hammer *toes*on both feet, and both big toes show a marked hallux valgus or inward turning of such toes. He has flát feet, and some arthritic conditions in both feet, being somewhat more acute in his left foot at the base of his left big toe.

The medical evidence is in some conflict, but it does show that there has been some aggravation of a preexisting structural deformity in his left foot.

We conclude from the evidence that claimant has sustained a 10 per cent loss of use of his left foot due to the fracture of his left big toe. No more than such per cent of loss of use can be attributed to his accident. Any greater disability is due- to structural deformity, and not his accident.

*292On the date of his accident, claimant was 54 years of age, a widower, and had no children under 18 years of age. His earnings in the year prior to his accident exceeded $5,000.00, and his rate of compensation is, therefore, $22.50 per week.

William J. Cleary & Co., Court Reporters, Chicago, was employed to take and transcribe the testimony before Commissioner Tearney. Charges- in the amount of $51.60 were incurred, which charges are reasonable and customary. An award is entered in favor of William J. Cleary & Co. for $51.60.

An award is entered in favor of claimant, Thomas Kehoe, under Section 8 (d) (14) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for a 10 per cent loss of use of his left foot, or 13% weeks at $22.50 per week, being the sum of $303.75, all of which has accrued and is payable forthwith.

This- award is subject to the approval of the Governor. Ill. Rev. St-at. 1949, Chapter 127, Section 180.
### §305. Growth projections for new embassies and consulates

#### (a) In general

For each new United States embassy compound (NEC) and new consulate compound project (NCC) in or not yet in the design phase as of December 27, 2021, the Department shall project growth over the estimated life of the facility using all available and relevant data, including the following:

(1) Relevant historical trends for Department personnel and personnel from other agencies represented at the NEC or NCC that is to be constructed.

(2) An analysis of the tradeoffs between risk and the needs of United States Government policy conducted as part of the most recent Vital Presence Validation Process, if applicable.

(3) Reasonable assumptions about the strategic importance of the NEC or NCC, as the case may be, over the life of the building at issue.

(4) Any other data that would be helpful in projecting the future growth of NEC or NCC.

#### (b) Other Federal agencies

The head of each Federal agency represented at a United States embassy or consulate shall provide to the Secretary, upon request, growth projections for the personnel of each such agency over the estimated life of each embassy or consulate, as the case may be.

#### (c) Basis for estimates

The Department shall base its growth assumption for all NECs and NCCs on the estimates required under subsections (a) and (b).

#### (d) Congressional notification

Any congressional notification of site selection for a NEC or NCC submitted after December 27, 2021 shall include the growth assumption used pursuant to subsection (c).

(Pub. L. 117–81, div. E, title LII, §5205, Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2355.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of State Authorization Act of 2021 and also as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, and not as part of the Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926, which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definitions of "Department" and "Secretary" as used in this section, see section 5002 of Pub. L. 117–81, set out as a note under section 263c of this title.
**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 AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Tuan Ha-Ngoc, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that, to his knowledge on the date hereof: 

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

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

Date: March 11, 2011