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





CERTIFICATIONS
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Israel Growth Partners
Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended July 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Craig Samuels, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and
Mitchell Metzman, Chief Financial 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, 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:
November 15, 2010





/s/ Craig SamuelsCraig
      SamuelsPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer/s/ Mitchell MetzmanMitchell
      MetzmanChief
      Financial
Officer
U.S. Department ofTransportation Office of the Secretary ofTransportation

SamAzad CityManager, The City ofPueblo Pueblo Memorial Airport 31201 Bryan Circle, Ste. 200 Pueblo, Colorado 81001

Dear Mr. Azad: Assistant Secretary


### MAY 18 2015 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Thankyou for your mostrecent letter dated April 28, 2015, regarding Essential Air Service ("EAS") at Pueblo. As you know, the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law No. 113-235 states, "[T]hatnone ofthe funds in this Act or any other Act shall be used to enter into a new contract with a community located less than 40 miles from the nearest small hub airport before the Secretary has negotiatedwiththe community over a local cost share." As Pueblo is located less than40 miles from Colorado Springs Airport (COS), a small hub, the Department is required to negotiate a local cost share withthe community ofPueblo before entering into a new EAS contract.

In your original letter dated March 23, 2015, the City ofPueblo proposed a 2.5 percent local cost share for the upcoming EAS contract award. The Department subsequently proposed a counter offer of7.5 percent for Pueblo's local share for a newtwo-yearterm contract. In your April28 letter, the City ofPueblo proposed a counter offer of5 percent for the local cost share. The Department has accepted Pueblo's offer and will require a 5 percent contribution ofthe annual subsidy amount for EAS provided by Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., ($1,776,448) or $88,822, from the City ofPueblo. Concurrent with Departmentpractice, subsidy is paid to carriers on a monthly basis, in arrears, and the Department will require proofofthe City'spaymentto Great Lakes priorto the Departmentreimbursing Great Lakes.

The Department wishes to remind the community that only non-airport revenue maybe used in conjunction with a subsidy to an air carrier. Airport revenue must be used for the operational and capital costs ofthe airport, the local airport system, or other facilities owned or operated by the airport owner or operator and directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers orproperty. The Federal Aviation Administration's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use ofAirport Revenue, 64 Fed. Reg. 7696 (Feb. 16, 1999), provides further details, and lists "directly subsidizing air carriers" as one example ofunlawful revenue diversion.Mr. Sam Azad Page2

As is our standardpractice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and myresponse in Docket 

### DOT-OST-1999-6589.

Cc: Mark Lovin, Director ofAviation Sincerely,

Brandon M. Belford Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs
Before the First Division,

August 16, 1951

No. 55815.

protests 78348-K, etc. (Boston).

#### McLaughlin & Freeman et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1016

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

to allow the projected on-budget surplus for any fiscal year to be used

for tax cuts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1999

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Budget

A BILL

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to allow the projected on-budget surplus

for any fiscal year to be used for tax cuts.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Budget Surplus Ac5 countability Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—
2

•HR 1016 IH

1 (1) the current budget rules, also known as

2 PAYGO, are obsolete because they do not address a

3 budget surplus;

4 (2) the current PAYGO requirements need to

5 be updated because they were written within the

6 framework of a deficit;

7 (3) the current PAYGO requirements do not

8 allow using on-budget surplus funds to pay for tax

9 cuts; and

10 (4) paygo rules shall require that any on-budget

11 surplus be used for tax cuts or debt reduction.

12 SEC. 3. PAYGO REQUIREMENTS AND THE ON-BUDGET SUR13 PLUS.

14 (a) SEQUESTRATION.—(1) Section 252(b)(1) of the

15 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

16 1985 is amended by inserting ‘‘, minus the amount for

17 the budget year, if any, estimated under paragraph (3)’’

18 after ‘‘as calculated under paragraph (2)’’.

19 (2) Section 252(b) of such Act is amended by adding

20 at the end the following new paragraph:

21 ‘‘(3) ESTIMATE OF ON-BUDGET SURPLUS IN

22 EXCESS OF SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.—OMB esti23 mates for the budget year of the amount (if any) of

24 the budget surplus as set forth in the OMB seques-
3

•HR 1016 IH

1 tration preview report as calculated pursuant to sec2 tion 254(c)(3).’’.

3 (b) REPORTS.—Section 254(c)(3) of the Balanced

4 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is

5 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara6 graph:

7 ‘‘(D) The estimated excess of receipts over

8 outlays for the budget year (if any).’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The undersigned, Brent Suen, the Chief Executive Officer ofWEYLAND TECH, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:  1. The Companys amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 12th day of September, 2018.  /s/ Brent SuenBrent SuenChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WEYLAND TECH, INC. and will be retained byWEYLAND TECH, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 19, 2014

t1112

Order 

Clerk

November 19, 2014

148056 & (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148056

COA: 316467 

Wayne CC: 08-009312-FC

DAVID ROARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of February 28, 2014, the defendant’s previously appointed appellate 

counsel was directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having 

been received, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2013 order of the Court 

of Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the 

defendant’s May 29, 2013 delayed application for leave to appeal as on leave granted. 

Because the defendant waited more than five months before filing an untimely request for 

the appointment of appellate counsel, the defendant is not entitled to review under the 

standard applicable to direct appeals. However, the defendant’s previously appointed 

appellate attorney failed to comply with Administrative Order 2004-6, Minimum 

Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services, Standard 5. Counsel did not 

seek to withdraw pursuant to Anders v California, 386 US 738; 87 S Ct 1396; 18 L Ed 2d 

493 (1967). Therefore costs are imposed against the attorney, only, in the amount of 

$1,000 to be paid to the Clerk of this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 James Goldstene Executive Officer California Air Resource Board 1001I Street, P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 958 12


### RE: Completeness Finding for Western Mojave Desert 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan &* 

### "5 Dear Mr& On July 22,2008, you submitted a revision to the California State Implementation Plan for achieving and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. This revision consists of the Western Mojave Desert 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan.
Wehave reviewed this package for completeness and found that it conforms to the completeness criteria in 40 CFRpart 5 1,appendix V. The complete submittal includes, among other elements, a reasonable further progress demonstration for the 2008 milestone year and thereby addresses the finding of failure to submit for this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area made by EPA on March 17,2008(and announced on March 24,2008 at 73FR 15416-1 5421). Our completeness finding stops the related clock for mandatory sanctionsunder section 179(a)of the Clean Air Act.
If you have any questionsregarding our review, please call me or have your staff contact Lisa Hanf, Chief of the Planning Office, at (415) 972-3854,hanf.lisa@epa.gov. Sincerely,

Director, Air Division
cc: Mr. Eldon Heaston Executive Director Mojave Desert AQMD 14306 Park Avenue Victorville, CA 92392
Mr. Eldon Heaston Executive Director Antelope Valley AQMD 43301 Division Street, Suite 206 Lancaster, CA 93535

Printed on Recyded Paper
Before the First Division,

August 14, 1951

No. 55814.

petition 6818-R (Galveston).

#### H. Elkan & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The record disclosed that the merchandise in question was entered at $205.45 per metric ton, net; that later the two entries involved were amended to $110 per metric ton, net, packed, and were appraised on the basis of that price; that an appeal for reappraisement was taken by the Government; and that it was stipulated that at the time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at $210 per metric ton, gross *298weight, packed (Reap. Dee. 7851). It appeared that the underlying reason for the undervaluation was based upon incorrect information received from the appraiser, pursuant to a request for information by the importer, that the proper dutiable value was $110 per metric ton, gross Weight, packed. Prom the record it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
EXHIBIT 99.6

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We
hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Registrant") and to the
use of our name in the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 13, 2009 for the year ended December 31, 2008 which document makes reference to our firm and our reports entitled
"EnerMark Inc.  Oil Sands Resources Summary" dated February 23, 2009, evaluating the Registrant's contingent and prospective bitumen resources
effective December 31, 2008.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.March 13, 2009/s/ DANA B. LAUSTSEN Dana B. Laustsen, P. Eng. Executive Vice-President


---



QuickLinks
Before the Second Division,

November 5, 1953

No. 57592.

#### Lyons Transport *v.*United States,

protest 191841-K/3732 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial, it was conceded by the Government that the merchandise consisted of parts of printing machinery. In view of the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 74 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 74

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 2, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) providing for 
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the 
final rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Waste Prevention, 
Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation''. All points of 
order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted 
by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation. All points of order against consideration of the joint 
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 775 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 775

 Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 11, 2018, 
  through March 17, 2018, as National Women Veterans Recognition Week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2018

Mr. Lawson of Florida (for himself, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Mast, Mr. Diaz-
 Balart, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, Ms. Castor of Florida, 
 Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Thomas J. 
Rooney of Florida, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Soto, Mr. Gaetz, and Ms. 
   Frankel of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 11, 2018, 
  through March 17, 2018, as National Women Veterans Recognition Week.

Whereas approximately two million women in the United States are veterans;
Whereas Florida has the third largest population of women veterans in the 
        country;
Whereas, in 1943, Congress introduced and passed legislation to establish the 
        Women's Army Corps (WAC), which provided full military status to women;
Whereas, in 1967, the Women's Armed Services Integration Act was amended to lift 
        restrictions on the number and ranks of women in the military;
Whereas women are now the fastest growing segment of the veteran community;
Whereas women veterans have served in every branch of the military, and in 
        various roles including gunners, police, pilots, truck drivers, and fuel 
        suppliers;
Whereas women bring a unique skill set and perspective to military service;
Whereas women veterans have selflessly and courageously served their country; 
        and
Whereas women veterans deserve to be recognized for their incredible sacrifices 
        and service: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``National Women Veterans 
Recognition Week Resolution''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION.

    The House of Representatives supports the designation of National 
Women Veterans Recognition Week.
                                 <all>
```
Document

Exhibit 10.29


Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation


The non-employee members of the Board of Directors of Envestnet, Inc. (the “Board”) receive an annual retainer of $190,000, of which $50,000 is in cash and $140,000 is in restricted stock units. The non-employee members of the Board are also entitled to the following additional annual retainers which are payable 25% in cash and 75% in restricted stock units: $75,000 for the Chairperson of the Board; $30,000 for the Vice Chair of the Board; $25,000 for the Chair of the Audit Committee; $20,000 for the Chairs of all other Board committees; and $10,000 for all non-Chair committee members for each committee on which they serve. Cash amounts paid to directors are paid quarterly with respect to the pro rata portion of fees earned during that quarter. Equity amounts paid to directors are granted once a year no later than March 31st for the amounts earned during the previous year. Restricted stock units fully vest on the first anniversary of the grant.


Non-employee directors who join the Board receive an initial equity grant of $100,000 of restricted stock units. Envestnet, Inc. reimburses all directors for their reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board or Board committees.
Back to Contents

|             |
|------------------|
| **EXHIBIT 10.2** |

 

----

Back to Contents

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF GROUP FINANCE DIRECTOR**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Julian Hance, Group Finance  Director 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.

     

|  Date: June 27, 2003 | /s/ Julian Hance        Julian Hance        Group Finance Director |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60143

Summary Calendar

DINA IRENE ASMITIA,

Petitioner,

versus

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A 087 589 740

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dina Asmitia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60143 Document: 00514448274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2018
No. 17-60143

2

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of 

the order of the immigration judge (“IJ”) directing her removal and denying 

her application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). With respect to withholding of removal, the BIA 

agreed with the IJ that Asmitia had not demonstrated that she suffered past 

persecution on account of her membership in the proposed social group of “family members of persons who actively oppose gangs in El Salvador by public 

defiance of gang authority.” Asmitia asserts that she was persecuted because 

of her membership in that group, which she contends is a cognizable social 

group for purposes of withholding of removal.

We do not address whether the proposed social group is cognizable or 

whether any harm rose to the level of persecution, because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that “[e]ven assuming that [Asmitia] established a cognizable social group, she has not demonstrated that a central 

motive for the harm she suffered and fears is on account of her membership in 

the group.” See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); Efe v. 

Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). The BIA found that the evidence 

showed that any harm was based on the gang’s perception that Asmitia was 

wealthy. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Chen, 470 F.3d 

at 1134.

Further, Asmitia has failed to show that the evidence compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured, as that term is 

defined for purposes of relief under the CAT, if she returned to El Salvador. 

See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(2); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1139. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60143 Document: 00514448274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2018
No. 68581.

protests 61/13469, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### James G. Wiley, a/c Big Boy Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of barbecue grills similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66689, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.