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




In connection with the quarterly report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, 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.












/s/Jingong Pan


Jingong Pan


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


November 15, 2010





/s/ Wilson W. Liu


Wilson W. Liu


Chief Financial Officer


November 15, 2010
#### § 582.405 Setoffs prohibited.

A setoff against blocked property (including a blocked account), whether by a U.S. bank or other U.S. person, is a prohibited transfer under § 582.201 if effected after the effective date.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL LEE EBERSOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00112-LMB; 1:06-cv-00869-LMB) Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 29, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Lee Ebersole, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas H. McQuillan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Russell Lee Ebersole seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ebersole has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,477
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,641
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,745
<PP&E>                                          95,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,107
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,608
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,525)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,525)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3068 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                    September 19, 1996.
      Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
3068) entitled ``An Act to accept the request of the Prairie Island 
Indian Community to revoke their charter of incorporation issued under 
the Indian Reorganization Act'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND 
              INDIAN COMMUNITY UNDER THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT.

    (a) Acceptance of Request To Revoke Charter.--The request of the 
Prairie Island Indian Community to surrender the charter of 
incorporation issued to that community on July 23, 1937, pursuant to 
section 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as the ``Indian 
Reorganization Act'' (48 Stat. 988, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 477) is 
hereby accepted.
    (b) Revocation of Charter.--The charter of incorporation referred 
to in subsection (a) is hereby revoked.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT 
              ACT.

    Section 8(e)(3) The Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement 
Act (106 Stat. 2241) is amended by striking ``December 31, 1996'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 1998''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS 
              SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1992.

    Section 3711(b)(1) of the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights 
Settlement Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4752) is amended by striking 
``December 31, 1996'' and inserting ``June 30, 1997''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.

HR 3068 EAS----2
HR 3068 EAS----3
HR 3068 EAS----4
HR 3068 EAS----5
HR 3068 EAS----6
HR 3068 EAS----7
HR 3068 EAS----8
HR 3068 EAS----9
HR 3068 EAS----10
HR 3068 EAS----11
HR 3068 EAS----12
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3068

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
# C_2005207EN.01000101.xml

| 24.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 August 2005

(2005/C 207/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2233 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4581 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68020 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3674 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5534 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 77,93 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9557 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5729 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,664 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,08 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0285 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5101 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,51 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,800 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6724 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6194 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4675 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5095 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7546 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0420 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 256,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9343 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,9102 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3800 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 321,69 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,611 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,413 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,9150 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,155 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2233

JPY

Japanese yen

134,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4581

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68020

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3674

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5534

ISK

Iceland króna

77,93

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9557

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5729

CZK

Czech koruna

29,664

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,08

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0285

RON

Romanian leu

3,5101

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,51

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,800

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6724

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6194

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4675

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5095

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7546

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0420

KRW

South Korean won

1 256,88

ZAR

South African rand

7,9343

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,9102

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3800

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 321,69

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,611

PHP

Philippine peso

68,413

RUB

Russian rouble

34,9150

THB

Thai baht

50,155

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7694

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NORVELL WEBSTER CRUMP,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-101, CA-01-969)

Submitted: February 4, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norvell Webster Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Norvell Webster Crump appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a reduction to his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Crump, Nos. CR-94-101; CA-01-

969 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 21, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division 

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 18, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Artesia Digital Media Group, Beaconsfield, United Kingdom; FirstSpin, Inc., Long Island City, NY; Grant Hammond (individual member), London, United Kingdom; and William C. Miller (individual member), New Rochelle, NY have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Filmlight, Harbord, New South Wales, Australia; National Geographic, Washington, DC; and Craig Beckman (individual member), Lorton, VA have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                 

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. 

                    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).                 

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 11, 2008. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 63020).                 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

 [FR Doc. E9-2095 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
SUPREME COURT — NEW YORK SPECIAL TERM,

MAY, 1898.

#### David Williamson, Plaintiff, *v.*The Continental Filter Co. et al., Defendants.

Action to compel' the transfer by the defendant company upon its books' to plaintiff of sixty-nine shares of its stock, and to issue a new certificate therefor, etc.

Clarence De Witt Rogers, for plaintiff.

Howland, Murray *&*Anderson, for defendants.

Hiscock, J.

The plaintiff is the holder and in possession of and produces upon the trial of this action a certificate transferring to him absolutely and as the unqualified owner, sixty-nine shares of the capital stock of the above-named defendant company, and seeks to compel said company tó transfer said stock to him upon its books.

The defendants, and principally, it appears, the defendant Anderson, dispute his right to have said stock so transferred, claiming that he holds the same as security and not as an absolute owner.

A somewhat involved explanation has been offered by the evidence of the defendants to sustain such theory of security or qualified ownership. After considering the same, however, in the light of plaintiff’s evidence contradicting such theory and in the light of the *prima facie,*right which .plaintiff' has upon the face .of the certificate to have it transferred to him, I am of the opinion that the latter has established his right to the relief claimed, and that he should have judgment compelling such transfer, etc.

Findings or decision and judgment in accordance herewith, with costs against both defendants, may be prepared by plaintiff, and if *756not satisfactory in form to defendants, they may submit amend? iments.. - . . " .

Ordered accordingly.
#### Oliphant *v.*Frost.

Where the Bond of a purchaser at sheriff’s sale has Been deposited in court By consent, in lieu of the purchase-money, it does not carry interest.

In errpr from the Common Pleas of Fayette.

It appeared that Oliphant, having purchased certain real estate at sheriff’s sale, executed his bond, with warrant of attorney, to one Frost, conditioned to pay the purchase-money. By consent of creditors, the sheriff deposited the bond in court, arid Frost assigned it to the prothonotary. .On the application 'of the creditors, the court ordered judgment to be entered and execution to issue for the debt secured thereby, with interest from its date. This, and the issuing execution in the name of Frost, were assigned for error.

*Patterson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Veech,*contó.

Per Curiam.

By agreement of the creditors, the bond was paid into court as cash; and a fund in court does not bear interest. If the obligor was ready with the money when called for, it was all they could ask. The purchase-money was not invested for accumulation, and they knew it. The security was taken as an equivalent for the thing secured; and having the benefit of it, they cannot complain that the shadow is not greater than the substance. But they had a right to have the bond entered up; and whether it was at the suit of the proper plaintiff, cannot be told, as the bond is not part of the record. A transfer to a legal assignee could be pleaded as a defence on the merits, which could be attained only by opening the judgment.- But the execution for interest is erroneous.

Execution set aside.
697 A.2d 983

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Michael C. BALDAUFF, Respondent.

No. 331, Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 13, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 22,1997, it is hereby

*417ORDERED that MICHAEL C. BALDAUFF be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three (3) years, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
§ 3.508 Authority of the ALJ. ( a ) The ALJ must conduct a fair and impartial hearing, avoid delay, maintain order, and ensure that a record of the proceeding is made.
( b ) The ALJ may— ( 1 ) Set and change the date, time and place of the hearing upon reasonable notice to the parties;
( 2 ) Continue or recess the hearing in whole or in part for a reasonable period of time;
( 3 ) Hold conferences to identify or simplify the issues, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding;
( 4 ) Administer oaths and affirmations;
( 5 ) Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses at hearings and the production of documents at or in relation to hearings;
( 6 ) Rule on motions and other procedural matters;
( 7 ) Regulate the scope and timing of documentary discovery as permitted by this subpart;
( 8 ) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of representatives, parties, and witnesses;
( 9 ) Examine witnesses;
( 10 ) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence;
( 11 ) Upon motion of a party, take official notice of facts;
( 12 ) Conduct any conference, argument or hearing in person or, upon agreement of the parties, by telephone; and
( 13 ) Upon motion of a party, decide cases, in whole or in part, by summary judgment where there is no disputed issue of material fact. A summary judgment decision constitutes a hearing on the record for the purposes of this subpart.
( c ) The ALJ— ( 1 ) May not find invalid or refuse to follow Federal statutes, regulations, or Secretarial delegations of authority and must give deference to published guidance to the extent not inconsistent with statute or regulation;
( 2 ) May not enter an order in the nature of a directed verdict;
( 3 ) May not compel settlement negotiations; or
( 4 ) May not enjoin any act of the Secretary.
§ 549.204 Expenses of maintaining blocked physical property; liquidation of blocked property. ( a ) Except as otherwise authorized, and notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all expenses incident to the maintenance of physical property blocked pursuant to § 549.201(a) shall be the responsibility of the owners or operators of such property, which expenses shall not be met from blocked funds.
( b ) Property blocked pursuant to § 549.201(a) may, in the discretion of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45486-45487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21303]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Name of Agency: Postal Regulatory Commission.
    Time and Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.
    Place: Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 
200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.

[[Page 45487]]

    Status: Closed.
    Matters To Be Considered: Personnel matters--selection of the 
secretary and deputy secretary.
    Contact Person for More Information: Stephen L. Sharfman, General 
Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 
200, Washington, DC 20268-0001, 202-789-6820 and 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2818697829a979cdc819a9380949f939cb2828091dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bac9cedfcad2dfd494c9d2dbc8dcd7dbd4facac8d994ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 31, 2009.
Judith M. Grady,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21303 Filed 8-31-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 594.402 Effect of amendment.

Unless otherwise specifically provided, any amendment, modification, or revocation of any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by or under the direction of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control does not affect any act done or omitted, or any civil or criminal suit or proceeding commenced or pending prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made.