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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of China Electronics Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date 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, as amended; and




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




Date: May 13, 2011

/s/ Hailong LiuHailong LiuChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
[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: Potashin the greensands of New Jersey**
 
Report | Plates: 010203
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:727
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958130
 
July 27, 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AGREED MOTION TO CONTINUE

U.S. v. Thurman/CR06-5061FDB - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-5061FDB 

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER 

) GRANTING AGREED

v. ) MOTION TO CONTINUE

) TRIAL DATE AND

TROY DONTE THURMAN, ) PRETRIAL MOTIONS DATE

)

Defendant. ) )

Upon the agreed motion of the parties to continue the trial and pretrial motions due

date in the above-captioned case, and based upon the facts set forth in that motion, which

are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted as findings of fact, the Court finds that a

failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning

of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). The Court further finds that such a continuance would

serve the ends of justice and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in

a speedy trial; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to October 2, 2006. 

The period of delay resulting from this continuance from July 14, 2006, up to and

including the new trial date of October 2, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial

purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) for the purpose of computing the time

limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174.

Case 3:06-cr-05061-BHS Document 55 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AGREED MOTION TO CONTINUE

U.S. v. Thurman/CR06-5061FDB - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 428-3800

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date be extended to 

July 28, 2006. 

DATED this 30th day of June, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Michael Dion 

MICHAEL DION

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Michael Schwartz (per telephonic auth.)

MICHAEL SCHWARTZ

Attorney for Defendant

Troy Donte Thurman

Case 3:06-cr-05061-BHS Document 55 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit (12)

CLEARWATER
PAPER CORPORATION

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(In thousands)



|                                                       |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |          |   |  |         |  
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------- |  | ------- |  | ------- |  | -------- | - |  | ------- | -
|                                                       |  | 2008    |  | 2007    |  | 2006    |  | 2005     |   |  | 2004    |  
|Earnings (loss) from operations before taxes on income |  | $15,337 |  | $39,407 |  | $33,263 |  | $(14,840 | ) |  | $(8,798 | )
|Add:                                                   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |          |   |  |         |  
|Interest expense                                       |  | 13,147  |  | 13,000  |  | 13,000  |  | 12,589   |   |  | 12,500  |  
|Rental expense factor1                                 |  | 4,501   |  | 4,489   |  | 5,156   |  | 4,654    |   |  | 4,552   |  
|Discount and loan expense amortization                 |  | 46      |  |        |  |        |  |         |   |  |        |  
|Earnings available for fixed charges                   |  | $33,031 |  | $56,896 |  | $51,419 |  | $2,403   |   |  | $8,254  |  
|Fixed charges:                                         |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |          |   |  |         |  
|Interest expense                                       |  | $13,147 |  | $13,000 |  | $13,000 |  | $12,589  |   |  | $12,500 |  
|Rental expense factor1                                 |  | 4,501   |  | 4,489   |  | 5,156   |  | 4,654    |   |  | 4,552   |  
|Discount and loan expense amortization                 |  | 46      |  |        |  |        |  |         |   |  |        |  
|Total fixed charges                                    |  | $17,694 |  | $17,489 |  | $18,156 |  | $17,243  |   |  | $17,052 |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     |  | 1.9     |  | 3.3     |  | 2.8     |  | 0.1      |   |  | 0.5     |  



|1 | Rental expense factor is the portion of rental expense estimated to be representative of the interest factor within
rental expense.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dollar amount of deficiency in earnings available for fixed charges for a one-to-one ratio for 2005 and 2004
was $14,840 and $8,798, respectively.

Certain 2004-2007 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2008 presentation.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 102 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 102

 Designating August 15, 1997 as ``Indian Independence Day: A National 
         Day of Celebration of Indian and American Democracy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                June 18 (legislative day, June 17), 1997

    Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Reed, Ms. 
 Landrieu, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Wellstone, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, Mr. Kerry, 
 Mr. Abraham, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Smith of 
 Oregon) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             July 31, 1997

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating August 15, 1997 as ``Indian Independence Day: A National 
         Day of Celebration of Indian and American Democracy''.

Whereas India is the world's largest democracy and shares with the United States 
        the system in which the supreme power to govern is invested in the 
        people;
Whereas the people of India drew upon the values of the rule of law in creating 
        a representative democracy;
Whereas India and the United States share a common bond of being former British 
        colonies;
Whereas India's independence was achieved pledged to the principles of fairness, 
        dignity, peace, and democracy;
Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations 
        and their peoples;
Whereas August 15, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the struggle 
        which freed the Indian people from British colonial rule; and
Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the Indian people, and to 
        reaffirm the democratic principles on which our two great nations were 
        born: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That August 15, 1997 is designated as ``Indian 
Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Indian and American 
Democracy''. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe the day with 
appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
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 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BRIAN PLASKON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF

KING COUNTY d/b/a VALLEY MEDICAL

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0367RSL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On January 7, 2008, plaintiff filed his

opposition to defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees that, taken as a whole, exceeds 50 pages in

length. (Dkt. #49). As of this date, a courtesy copy of these documents has not been provided

for chambers. 

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failure

to comply with four prior orders of this Court (Dkt. ## 8, 12, 14, and 16) requiring courtesy

copies of lengthy filings for chambers. Plaintiff shall immediately deliver a paper copy of the

motion and all supporting documents, with tabs or other organizing aids as necessary and clearly

marked with the words “Courtesy Copy of Electronic Filing for Chambers,” to the Clerk’s

Office. Plaintiff shall respond to this order to show cause no later than five days from the date 

Case 2:06-cv-00367-RSL Document 54 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 2
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 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

of this Order. 

DATED this 11th day of January, 2008.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00367-RSL Document 54 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2
# Official Journal C 124/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.124.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 124 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5527 April 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.124.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 124

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5527 April 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 124/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2012 to 31 March 2012(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2012/C 124/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2012 to 31 March 2012(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 12 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 124/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2012 to 31 March 2012(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2012/C 124/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2012 to 31 March 2012(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

12

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER a/k/a

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

G. WIGEN, et al

CASE NUMBER: C05-5662FDB

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; and 

Defendant’s motion to reopen case [Dkt. #42] and for show cause order directed to Defendant

Melendez [Dkt. #44] are denied.

 July 24, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05662-FDB Document 49 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 1
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 

17, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00126-CV

ALBERT ORTIZ, Appellant

V.

THE JUNELL LAW FIRM, SANDERS & JUNELL P.C., MARK JUNELL, 

INDIVIDUALLY, AND BERGMAN ADR GROUP, Appellees

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-24922

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 31, 2011. On January 14, 

2013, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the case has been 

settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally.
No. 62331.

#### Plus Computing Machines, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 267318-K, etc. (New York).

*364Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of key-driven calculating machines and metal parts thereof similar in all material respects, except for having, in addition, an electric motor as as essential feature, to the merchandise the subject of *Plus Computing Machines, Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 160, C. A. D. 655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             785
<SECURITIES>                                        14
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,218
<INVENTORY>                                     27,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,544
<PP&E>                                         159,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,908
<BONDS>                                         31,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         19
<COMMON>                                           107
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   185,550
<SALES>                                         27,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,883
<CGS>                                           17,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   217
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,197)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,295)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   5,482
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,014
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,201
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
From: ginny.feldmann@sim.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:33:08 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,

Virginia Feldmann

Elgin, IL 60120
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.103 Nonfinancial Noncorporate Business** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 64634.

#### Alfred H. Marzolf v. United States,

protests 322652-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion hy

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69239-69240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22137]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

[[Page 69240]]


DATES: Date of required notice: October 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 65 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-280, CP2023-283.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-22137 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 10.13**VOCUS, INC.****COMPENSATION POLICY FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS**Effective as of January 1, 2008, the compensation payable to the non-employee members of the boardof directors of Vocus, Inc. shall be as follows:*Annual Retainer* **•** An annual retainer of $40,000. The retainer for service as a director includes meetingfees, service on one committee and informal meetings with the CEO and management asnecessary.  **•** The chairperson of the audit committee and the lead director/chairperson of thecompensation committee shall receive an additional retainer of $10,000.  **•** The annual retainer payable to directors shall be paid in restricted stock or cash.Each director will communicate his/her preference before January 31. Cash payments willbe paid within a reasonable number of days after the end of the rolling quarter (i.e.4/30, 7/31, 10/31 and 1/31) with 25% of the total retainer paid each quarterly.Restricted stock will be granted on January 31 and 25% of the shares vest on the last dayof each rolling quarter of the service year.*Stock Based Compensation* **•** Each director shall receive a grant of options to purchase shares of the Company’scommon stock with the amount and vesting of such awards determined by the CompensationCommittee of the Board of Directors or the Board of Directors of the Company.  **•** Each director shall receive a restricted stock award with the amount and vesting ofsuch awards determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors or theBoard of Directors of the Company.  **•** The chairperson of the audit committee and the lead director/chairperson of thecompensation committee shall receive additional grants of stock options with the amountand vesting of such awards determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board ofDirectors or the Board of Directors of the Company.