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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



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), each of the undersigned officers of Korn/Ferry International, a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his best knowledge:



(a) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
April 30, 2006 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|Dated: |  | July 7, 2006
|------ |  | ------------



By:

/s/    PAULC.
REILLYName:

Paul C. ReillyTitle:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer






By:

/s/    GARYD.
BURNISONName:

Gary D. BurnisonTitle:

Chief Operating Officer,Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6480

JASON DENNIS HIBBS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, Warden; RICHARD CULLEN, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-726) Submitted: September 26, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John William Acree, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. JohnH. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jason Dennis Hibbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hibbs v. Lee , No. CA-99-726 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight level. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the following rules apply— ( a ) *In controlled airspace.* Each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled airspace shall maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft by ATC. However, if the ATC clearance assigns “VFR conditions on-top,” that person shall maintain an altitude or flight level as prescribed by § 91.159.
( b ) *In uncontrolled airspace.* Except while in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in uncontrolled airspace shall maintain an appropriate altitude as follows: ( 1 ) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and— ( i ) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 3,000, 5,000, or 7,000); or
( ii ) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000).
( 2 ) When operating at or above 18,000 feet MSL but below flight level 290, and— ( i ) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level (such as 190, 210, or 230); or
( ii ) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level (such as 180, 200, or 220).
( 3 ) When operating at flight level 290 and above in non-RVSM airspace, and— ( i ) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 330, or 370); or
( ii ) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 310 (such as flight level 310, 350, or 390).
( 4 ) When operating at flight level 290 and above in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace and— ( i ) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level, at 2,000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 410); or
( ii ) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level, at 2000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 300 (such as 300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400).
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-276, 68 FR 61321, Oct. 27, 2003; 68 FR 70133, Dec. 17, 2003; Amdt. 91-296, 72 FR 31679, June 7, 2007]
NO. 07-05-0017-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C MARCH 3, 2005

______________________________

MISTY BELITZ, Appellant
v. THE STA

TE OF TEX

AS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF DEAF S MITH COUNTY; NO. 04-0396; HON. TOM SIMONS, PRESIDING

_______________________________ ON MOTION TO DISMISS

__________________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. Appellant

Misty Belitz, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal becauseshe no l onger de sires to p rosecuteit. Without passing on the merits of the case, w e grant th e motion to dismis s pursuan t to Texa s Rule of Appell ate Proce dure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismisse d the app eal at ap pellant’ s request , no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our manda te will issue forthwith. Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31614-31615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12453]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative Activities; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science

[[Page 31615]]

Foundation announces the following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative 
Activities (1193).
    Date and Time: July 24, 2000, 8 am-5 pm.
    Place: Room 310, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Caroline Wardle, Information Technology 
Workforce, Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 1160, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1981.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation 
for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate information Technology Workforce 
proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF 00-
77).
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 522b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12453 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
§ 22.19 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) The ALJ may schedule prehearing conferences as appropriate.
( b ) Upon the motion of any party, the ALJ shall schedule at least one prehearing conference at a reasonable time in advance of the hearing.
( c ) The ALJ may use prehearing conferences to discuss the following: ( 1 ) Simplification of the issues;
( 2 ) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, including the need for a more definite statement;
( 3 ) Stipulations and admissions of fact or as to the contents and authenticity of documents;
( 4 ) Whether the parties can agree to submission of the case on a stipulated record;
( 5 ) Whether a party chooses to waive appearance at an oral hearing and to submit only documentary evidence (subject to the objection of other parties) and written argument;
( 6 ) Limitation of the number of witnesses;
( 7 ) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits;
( 8 ) Discovery;
( 9 ) The time and place for the hearing; and
( 10 ) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the fair and just disposition of the proceedings.
( d ) The ALJ may issue an order containing all matters agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the ALJ at a prehearing conference.
§ 2520.104-4 Alternative method of compliance for certain successor pension plans. ( a ) *General.* Under the authority of section 110 of the Act, this section sets forth an alternative method of compliance for certain successor pension plans in which some participants and beneficiaries not only have their rights set out in the plan, but also retain eligibility for certain benefits under the terms of a former plan which has been merged into the successor. This section is applicable only to plan mergers which occur after the issuance by the successor plan of the initial summary plan description under the Act. Under the alternative method, the plan administrator of the successor plan is not required to describe relevant provisions of merged plans in summary plan descriptions of the successor plan furnished after the merger to that class of participants and beneficiaries still affected by the terms of the merged plans.
( b ) *Scope and application.* This alternative method of compliance is available only if: ( 1 ) The plan administrator of the successor plan furnishes to the participants covered under the predecessor plan and beneficiaries receiving pension benefits under the merged plan within 90 days after the effective date of the merger: ( i ) A copy of the most recent summary plan description of the successor plan;
( ii ) A copy of any summaries of material modifications to the successor plan not incorporated in the most recent summary plan description; and
( iii ) A separate statement containing a brief description of the merger, a description of the provisions of, and benefits provided by, the merged and successor plans which are applicable to the participants and beneficiaries of the merged plan; and a notice that copies of the merged and successor plan documents, as well as the plan merger documents (including the portions of any corporate merger documents which describe or control the plan merger), are available for inspection and that copies may be obtained upon written request for a duplication charge (pursuant to § 2520.104b-30); and
( 2 ) After the merger, the plan administrator, in all subsequent summary plan descriptions furnished pursuant to § 2520.104b-2(a)— ( i ) Clearly and conspicuously identifies the class of participants and beneficiaries affected by the provisions of the merged plan, and
( ii ) States that the documents described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are available for inspection and that copies may be obtained upon written request for a duplication charge (pursuant to § 2520.104b-30).
[42 FR 37182, July 19, 1977, as amended at 67 FR 776, Jan. 7, 2002]
§ 1949.1 Policy regarding tuition fees. ( a ) The OSHA Training Institute shall charge tuition fees for all private sector students attending Institute courses.
( b ) The following private sector students shall be exempt from the payment of tuition fees. ( 1 ) Associate members of Field Federal Safety and Health Councils.
( 2 ) Students who are representatives of foreign governments.
( 3 ) Students attending courses which are required by OSHA for the student to maintain an existing designation of OSHA certified outreach trainer.
( c ) Additional exemptions may be made by the Director of the OSHA Training Institute on a case by case basis if it is determined that the students exempted are employed by a nonprofit organization and the granting of an exemption from tuition would be in the best interest of the occupational safety and health program. Individuals or organizations wishing to be considered for this exemption shall make application to the Director of the OSHA Training Institute in writing stating the reasons for an exemption from payment of tuition.
[56 FR 28076, June 19, 1991]
# EUR-Lex - 32000R0020 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R0020

**Council Regulation (EC) No 20/2000 of 17 December 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 008 , 12/01/2000 P. 0001 - 0053 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 20/2000

of 17 December 1999

amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) It is in the interest of the Community to suspend totally or partially the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a certain number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96(1);

(2) A number of products which are referred to in the said Regulation should be withdrawn from the list in the Annex because it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties, or because they are exempt from duty under GATT or because the description needs to be altered in the light of technical developments;

(3) Accordingly, products whose description needs to be alterred should be regarded as new products;

(4) Having regard to the economic importance of the said Regulation for European industry and the request that it enter into force on 1 January 2000, it is necessary to invoke the ground of urgency referred to in point I(3) of the additional Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the role of national parliaments in the European Union;

(5) In view of the large number of amendments coming into force on 1 January 2000 for greater clarity, the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be replaced by a completely new version,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 1 January 2000.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 1999.

For the Council

The President

K. HEMILÄ

(1) OJ L 158, 29.6.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1381/1999 (OJ L 165, 30.6.1999, p. 1).

ANNEX

>TABLE>
#### Sylvain R. Livingston, Respondent, *v.*Alfred C. Blumenthal, Appellant.

Submitted March 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*468
      *Jacob Krisel*and *Herman Mendes*for appellant.

*Harry A. Bloomberg, Sol Ringel*and *Milford Fenster*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
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 Tower Financial
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael D. Cahill, President and Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
Michael D. Cahill
 Michael
D. Cahill
 President
and Chief Executive Officer
 January 29, 2010
#### PEOPLE *v.*BROWN.

1. Rape — Dismissal op Codependant — Due Peocess.

Dismissal of female eodefendant from charge of statutory rape in course of trial on prosecutor’s motion beeause she gave birth to a child before completion of the trial *held,*not to have amounted to a denial of substantial justice in violation of due ■process (US Const, Am 14; CLS 1961, § 750.520).

2. Same — Statutoey Rape — Evidence.

Evidence presented at trial of defendant in prosecution for statutory rape *held,*sufficient to support verdiet of guilty (CLS 1961, § 750.520).

Repeeences poe Points in Headnotes

[1] 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law §§ 542-547.

[2] 44 Am Jur, Rape §§ 100, 101.

Appeal from Recorder’s Court of the City of Detroit ; Scallen (John P.), J.

Submitted Division 1 October 7, 1966, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 1,929.)

Decided February 28, 1967.

Leave to appeal denied May 22, 1968.

See 380 Mich 759.

Phillip Arthur Brown was convicted of carnal; knowledge of a female under the age of 16 years.Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*188
      *Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *Samuel H. Olsen,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Thomas P. Smith,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Clifford F. Patterson,*for defendant.

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendant, Phillip Arthur Brown and one Nancy Maxion were charged in the recorder’s court for the city of Detroit with having carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 16 years. CLS 1961, § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788).

During the course of the trial the charges against Nancy Maxion were dismissed on the prosecutor’s motion. On September 27, 1965, defendant was found guilty as charged by jury verdict.

The sole question presented on appeal is whether the action of the prosecuting attorney in moving to dismiss the charge against the other defendant and the action of the court in granting the prosecutor’s motion was so palpably unfair and unjust as to amount to a denial of substantial justice in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Defendant-appellant fails to cite one pertinent authority in support of his contention nor does our research disclose any.

The record discloses that the prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges as to Nancy Maxion because she gave birth to a child before the completion of the trial. We have examined the record to determine if the evidence presented at trial supports the verdict and we find that it does.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Holbrook, J., concurred.
English translation of Power of Attorney dated December 14, 2007



 Exhibit 10.14 
 This is an English translation 
 Power of Attorney

 I, XUE Baizhong, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”), ID Number 220104196509011554,
being the shareholder holding 100% of the equity interest (“My Equity Interests”) in Liaoning Nuokang Medicines Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), hereby irrevocably authorize the PRC natural person (the “Nominee”) nominated by
Penglai Nuokang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (the “WOFE”) to exercise the following powers and rights in respect of My Equity Interests during the term of this Letter: 
 I hereby authorize the Nominee, as my sole and exclusive attorney-in-fact, to exercise on my behalf the following rights in respect of My
Equity Interests, including but not limited to: (1) the full shareholder’s rights and voting rights according to the laws and regulations and under the articles of association of the Company, including but not limited to, the right to
propose to summon shareholders’ meetings, to receive notice regarding convening and agenda of shareholders’ meetings, to attend shareholders’ meetings and to exercise the voting rights attached to My Equity Interests, to sell,
transfer, pledge or dispose of all or part of My Equity Interests, to decide on the dividend distribution and on sale or transfer of My Equity Interests; and (2) acting as my authorized representative to designate and appoint the legal
representative of the Company (chairman of the board of directors), director(s), supervisor(s), the general manager and other senior management staff, etc., of the Company. 
 Subject to the prior consent from the WOFE, the Nominee is authorized to sign the Equity Transfer Agreement as contemplated in the Exclusive
Call Option Agreement (to which I am one party) on my behalf within the scope of authorization, to timely perform the Equity Pledge Agreement and Exclusive Call Option Agreement, to each of which I am one party, signed on the same date as this
Letter. The exercise of the aforesaid rights does not constitute any restriction to the authorization under this Letter. 
 All
the conducts of the Nominee in respect of My Equity Interests shall be deemed as my own conducts, and all signed documents shall be deemed as signed by myself, with my acknowledgement. 
 Subject to the prior consent from the WOFE, the Nominee has the right of re-authorizing other person or entity in respect of the matters
hereabove without prior notice or prior consent from me. 
 This Letter is irrevocable and valid from the date of this Letter
and during the term of which I am the shareholder of the Company (for purposes of this Letter, hereinafter the “Effective Period”). 







 During the Effective Period of this Letter, I hereby waive all the rights in respect of My
Equity Interests, the exercise of which has been authorized to the Nominee by this Letter, and will not exercise such rights by myself hereafter. 
  

			
	By:	 	/s/ XUE Baizhong
	
	XUE Baizhong
	
	December 14, 2007
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. The standards are published in subpart C of this part and following subparts.
( b ) Subpart B of this part contains statements of general policy and interpretations of section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act having general applicability.