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 Transition  Report of Consumer  Capital Group,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the  transition  period  from July 1, 2010 to
December 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Jianmin Gao, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:

     (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/ Jianmin Gao
-----------------------------------
Jianmin Gao
Principal Executive Officer
March 31, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                                            ****CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

                     Sybase / Intershop Reseller Agreement

                          Summary of Principle Terms


Parties:      Sybase GmbH
              Intershop Communications GmbH

Date:         March 1996

Purpose:      Allows Intershop to develop e-commerce solutions that utilize
              embedded runtime versions of Sybase database technology, and to
              sublicense derivatives of the Sybase product through its
              distributors.

Upgrades:     Sybase agrees to pay Intershop commissions under certain
              circumstances if a user upgrades to a full Sybase database
              license.

Support:      Intershop to receive front line support from Sybase.

Payment:      Intershop agrees to pay Sybase the fees for runtime versions,
              runtime support and transaction fees 30 days after the end of the
              month during which Intershop has sent out the copy of the Sybase
              derivative. Following July 1, 1996, Intershop paid Sybase nine
              installments for the bulk purchase of runtime licenses, a total of
              DM ****

Audit:        Sybase can audit Intershop only once a year to determine the
              correct usage and the number of sublicensed copies of Sybase
              programs.

Term:         The original contract was scheduled to expire on March 28 1998,
              but was extended and amended on March 20 1998. The extension
              acknowledged the relocation of Intershop's headquarters to San
              Francisco and extended the account status to global. License fees
              for the entire year of 1998 were increased to DM **** payable in
              four installments.

Disclosure:   If Sybase desires, the parties will determine the wording of the
              announcement of their cooperation. Both parties have permission
              that Intershop participates in the Sybase VAR program and that
              Intershop develops and offers solutions that include Sybase
              programs.


Warranty:     The Sybase warranty is good for one year starting with the date of
              delivery to Intershop and assures that the program was developed
              according to the current state of technology, thoroughly tested
              and is in compliance to the functionality described in the
              documentation. The warranty includes only Sybase product. Sybase
              does not warrant the product developed and distributed by
              Intershop.

Pricing:      In this contract extension, Sybase offered Intershop the annual
              option to purchase licenses at the same pricing for the following
              **** years.
No. 60235.

protest 291681-K (New York).

#### Levin Bros. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid flowers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59302, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 Renaissance Bioenergy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Scott Pummill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated this 13th day of September, 2010.





SCOTT PUMMILLScott PummillChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM DIGITRAN
SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   APR-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   14,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           321,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                             609,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        944,000
<PP&E>                                                  812,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                         (428,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        1,328,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,896,000
<BONDS>                                                 939,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                               1,000
<COMMON>                                                156,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           (2,644,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          1,328,000
<SALES>                                                 801,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,217,000
<CGS>                                                   758,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         2,028,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      261,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1,072,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1,072,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1,072,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 54-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 54-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 54-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ELVIA GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5193,M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 October 31, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05193-JKA Document 15 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 1
# Official Journal L 168/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 168 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6329 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 168

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6329 May 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria | 1 |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/717 of 28 May 2020 implementing Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic | 61 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/718 of 28 May 2020 appointing the EU Force Commander of the European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) | 64 |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria | 66 |
| | * | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/720 of 28 May 2020 implementing Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic | 126 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

1

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/717 of 28 May 2020 implementing Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic

61

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/718 of 28 May 2020 appointing the EU Force Commander of the European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI)

64

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

66

*

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/720 of 28 May 2020 implementing Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic

126

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 126 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 126

                          [Report No. 105-87]

  Authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 1997

  Mr. Specter, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, reported the 
    following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

                           September 26, 1997

         Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

                           September 30, 1997

  Reported by Mr. Warner, without amendment; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs.

    Resolved, That section 18(b) of Senate Resolution 54, 105th 
Congress, agreed to February 13, 1997, is amended by striking out 
``$1,123,430'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,698,430''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-40901

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES TIMOTHY ISAAC,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-187

_________________________________________________________________ May 4, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Timothy Isaac (“Isaac”), federal prisoner #04252-078,

has filed a pro se appeal of the district court’s denial of, and

denial of leave to amend, his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Isaac’s

motion challe nged his 1993 guilty plea conviction for using and

carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and possessing a

firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).2

The record does not conclusively show that Isaac is entitled

to no relief with respect to: (1) his claim that his guilty plea

was involuntary due to his counsel’s promise of an off-the-record

deal; (2) his claim that his counsel provided ineffective

assistance by erroneously advising him regarding the scope of

liability under § 924(c)(1); and (3) his claim that his counsel

provided ineffective assistance by failing to comply with his

request fo r a direct appeal. Because these claims are thus not

futile, see § 2255, the district court abused its discretion in

denying Isaac’s motion for leave to amend his § 2255 motion in

order to assert them. S ee Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.

, 28

F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Duff-Smith v. Collins

, 973

F.2d 1175, 1180 (5th Cir. 1992) (28 U.S.C. § 2254 case).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is VACATED and this

case is REMANDED to the district court with the instruction to

grant Isaac leave to amend his § 2255 motion in order to assert the

above claims. We neither express nor intimate any view as to the

claims’ ultimate merits. Finally, we decline to address the issues

raised in Isaac’s unamended § 2255 motion at this time in the light3

of the possibility that the proceedings below may culminate in an

out-of-time appeal. S ee Mack v. Smith

, 659 F.2d 23, 25-26 (1981).

VACATED and REMANDED.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 18, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.8 Saving and Investment by Sector 1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### __



## _____________ DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE, PROCESS, ORDERS DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ATTENTION DOCKET SECTION, 

### C-55

___ ...=;"'-'-!"'-"-"-'---=:.......:-'-

_________________, having its principal Office (Name of Company, please print)**at~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~** ________________________ (address) Hereby designates, pursuant to section 46103 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly section 1005(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended) the person named below as its Agent upon whom service of all notices processes and all orders, decision, and requirements of the Department of Transportation may be made for and on behalf of said carrier, hereby canceling all previous designations of agents made by it to the DOT. NameofAgent

__________**J~o~s~hwR~o~m~a~no~w~** ________________________ Address Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 The Agent 

### so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space:
le 

## .... l ""''''''''',..-

_____ __

# --;-L..~.::.1:===:::...---------- (InitiaIS),

____

# ,r~-+ IN WITNESS WHEREOF,

____________**...!.R~o!..Iy~aJ...1** J!.,l>e:.!,.t

### --.:,\.l!:'- 

## c:...=-
_____________h,as caused these (Name of Company) 

## l>-fe.t.\&entc\

# ~ presents to be signed in its name by

__

## --=5"'--~....:..;;=-.:..:c==-O=_\_'\A'_=Cbot=ti;..,e.. GIIRllfid C81:!ft:!!eI/ (Please Print) Attorney-in- Fact of said company, and to be attested under its corporate seal by

## ~~ 

# \l (Secretary, or other Title) On this

____ day


### (Giell@Fal 

### C,wpsel/Quol:Aey in faM)

## ~e.&\ 

# k"C\"1 c.<=. 0 ATTEST: (Secretary, or other officer) OST F 1010.5 (1-98)
From: tonyraa@eplus.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:15:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rodney Anderson

Jackson, TN 38305