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

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Terence Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of
CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2010 (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 26th day of July 2010.

| | /s/
      Terence Yap                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | Terence Yap                                                
| | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
      Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and
will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, 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.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 82 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.82

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government 
           pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
     This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fairness Act of 
2023''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVISION.
    (a) In General.--Section 202(k) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
        (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
    402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and (q)'' 
    and inserting ``subsection (q)''.
        (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)) is 
    amended by striking ``subsections (k)(5) and (q)'' and inserting 
    ``subsection (q)''.
        (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) 
    is amended by striking ``subsection (k)(5), subsection (q),'' and 
    inserting ``subsection (q)''.
        (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) 
    is amended by striking ``subsection (k)(5), subsection (q)'' and 
    inserting ``subsection (q)''.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS.
    (a) In General.--Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
415) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7);
        (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and
        (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(2) of 
section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended by striking 
``section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B)'' in subparagraphs (C) 
and (D)(i) and inserting ``paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)''.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
     The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social 
Security Act for months after December 2023. Notwithstanding section 
215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security 
shall adjust primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take 
into account the amendments made by section 3.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 32.5

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Long Only Commodity Series.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                        
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                          
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                           
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 11, 2010
#### DLOG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., APPELLANT-PETITIONER, v. PARK PLACE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Garretson, Levine, Goceljack & Hollander*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Shavick, Thevos, Stern, Schotz & Steiger*and *Mr. Barry I. Oroland*for the respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.
Before the Second Division,

August 5, 1942

No. 47435.

#### Protests 838440-G, etc., of Allied Stores Corp. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1882

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joan Myrna Reudas-Vargas

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

 ____________

 Submitted: October 31, 2019

Filed: November 5, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Joan Myrna Reudas-Vargas appealsthe district court’s

1

judgment entered upon

her guilty plea to theft of government property with regard to her receipt of social

1The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.
security disability benefits after an unreported period of work. Her counsel has

moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that Reudas-Vargas should have been permitted to withdraw her

guilty plea. In a pro se brief, Reudas-Vargas mentions her status as medically

disabled, a limitations period, the lack of administrative proceedings, and being

coerced to plead guilty. 

Following our review of the record, including the plea agreement and colloquy,

we conclude that Reudas-Vargas knowingly and voluntarily entered her guilty plea,

and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to

withdraw it. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008)

(reviewing for abuse of discretion denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea, and

reviewing de novo whether plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant must

establish “fair and just” reason to withdraw plea after its acceptance); see also

Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting defendant’s

representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). Aside from

any voluntariness argument, we conclude that Reudas-Vargas’s pro se arguments are

largely waived by her guilty plea, see United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th

Cir. 2007), as well as by the appeal waiver contained in her plea agreement, see

United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). We also decline to consider

any ineffective-assistance claim because the record is insufficiently developed. See

United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Finally, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issue for review. We grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, denyReudas-Vargas’s motion for appointment of new

counsel, and affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

-2-
No. 50123.

#### Protest 96553-K of Technicolor Motion Picture Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of motion-picture film the same in all material respects as that involved in *Technicolor Motion Picture Corp. v. United States (10*Cust. Ct. 157, C. D. 743). It was held that that case is distinguishable from the instant case in that there the importer made a consumption entry, and protest was filed against the collector’s liquidation of duties, while here the collector assessed liquidated damages, but the entry was liquidated free of duty. Government contended that the protest should be dismissed as untimely, having been filed more than 60 days after the decision of the collector as to the amount of the penal sum of the bond. It was held, however, that inasmuch as the entry was liquidated free of duty, the court was without jurisdiction to decide the question of the correctness of the penal sum of the bond. (Abstract 47165 cited.) The protest was therefore dismissed.
Exhibit 10.16 2014 10-K








EXHIBIT 10.16


OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


Pursuant to our 2014 Non-Employee Director Compensation Program, directors who are not our employees or employees of our subsidiaries receive an annual retainer fee of $100,000. The independent Lead Director receives an additional retainer fee of $40,000.  Chairpersons of the Compensation Committee and the Audit Committee receive an additional $20,000 retainer fee, and the Chairperson of the Governance & Nominating Committee receives an additional $15,000 retainer fee.  Non-employee directors also receive retainer fees for membership on the Board of Directors’ standing committees and Executive Committee. Committee member retainers are $5,000 for Governance & Nominating Committee members, $10,000 for Compensation Committee members and $15,000 for Audit Committee and Executive Committee members. Directors receive no additional compensation for participation in Board of Directors’ or committee meetings. Directors are, however, reimbursed for travel and other expenses related to attendance at these meetings as well as travel and other expenses related to attendance at educational seminars approved in advance by the Governance & Nominating Committee.
Equity awards are granted to non-employee Directors from time to time pursuant to our 2010 Long Term Compensation Plan. These grants are typically made following a Director’s initial election to the Board and each time the Director is re-elected by the shareholders to serve a new term. The annual awards, which are comprised of restricted shares, typically have a “grant date fair value” of approximately $100,000, calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 (formerly FAS 123R). The restricted shares vest on the first anniversary of the date of grant.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DARRYL D. HACKWORTH, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 185, 39 CMR 185

No. 21,680

March 14, 1969

*Lieutenant Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiAM:

. We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 38(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Order filed April 17, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00282-CV

____________

IN RE CELINA JEAN HARP, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

345th District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-AG-15-002375

ORDER

On April 15, 2020, relator Celina Jean Harp, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus and an appendix in this court. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 

prohibits the filing of documents containing sensitive data, including a birth date, 

home address, and the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying 
2

suit was filed. See Tex. R. App. 9.9. Relator’s appendix discloses prohibited 

sensitive data. See reporter’s record and exhibits in the appendix.

We strike relator’s petition and appendix and ORDER relator to file an 

amended petition and appendix, with any sensitive data redacted, that complies 

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 by April 22, 2020. All future filings by 

any party must comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 or are subject 

to being stricken.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell and Poissant.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Gary Sidorsky, certify that:

 

     1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of American DefenseSystems, Inc.;

 

     2. Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

     3. Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

          (a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

          (b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

          (c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

          (a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

          (b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  April 15, 2010

 
|   | /s/ Gary Sidorsky       |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Gary Sidorsky           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.8



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Masters
Fund, a Series of Frontier Funds on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Frontier Masters Fund.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                   | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                       | 
|Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Managing Member of Frontier Fund Management LLC, the Managing Owner of Frontier Funds | 



June 24, 2019
Before the First Division,

November 12, 1948

No. 52676.

petition 6673-R (New York).

#### Golding Bros. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, G. J.

From the testimony it appeared that this was one of a series of test cases which were the subject of previous petitions before this court, all of which have been decided in favor of the petitioner (Abstracts 51047, 51672, and 51860). The importer, after filing an appeal for reappraisement, investigated market conditions in the country of exportation to determine the proper dutiable value of the merchandise. Thereafter, the importer entered into a stipulation with the Government to the effect that the United States value was the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that the appraised value was the proper dutiable value. On the record presented it was held that entry of this merchandise was made without any 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.
September 20, 1944

No. 49730.

Petition 6306-R.

#### G. R. Kirk Co. *(Union Brokerage Co.)*v. *United States.*

Petition granted except as to entry 422-P as to which it was dismissed. Decided July 31, 1944. Abstract 49648.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00095 - CR ALAN DWAYNE HARPER, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Donley County, Texas Trial Court No. DCR

- 17 - 03928, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

### April 25 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Pending before this Court is appellant Alan Dwayne Harper’s motion to dismiss his appeal. As required by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant and his attorney have signed the motion. No decision of this Court having been deli vered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam Do not publish.