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**

|   | 1.     | The                Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007 (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 operations of the                Company.                                              |

| /s/                Xiangqian Li              |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Xiangqian                Li                  |   |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer       |   |   |
| (Principal                Executive Officer) |   |   |
|                                         |   |   |
| /s/                Tony Shen                 |   |   |
| Tony                Shen                     |   |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer       |   |   |
| (Principal                Financial Officer) |   |   |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to China BAK Battery, Inc. and will be retained by China BAK Battery,      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.*

----
8/14/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­2018

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­2018

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Friday, August 14, 2015 11:54 AM

To: david@imageeffects.com

Dear Mr. Hunt:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015−2018).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove

closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested

response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/14/15. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­4264.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
No. 54333.

#### Philip Blum & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 126806-K/883, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1433 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1433

To pay personnel compensation and benefits for employees of the Federal 
                        Aviation Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2011

Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
    Lautenberg, Mr. Warner, Mr. Begich, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cardin, and Mrs. McCaskill) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To pay personnel compensation and benefits for employees of the Federal 
                        Aviation Administration.

    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 ``Federal Aviation Employees 
Protection Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY FOR PERSONNEL COSTS.

     (a) In General.--Section 9502(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``before July 23, 2011,'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``before July 23, 
        2011,'' after ``incurred'';
            (3) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by striking ``heretofore or hereafter'' and 
                inserting ``before July 23, 2011,'' after ``incurred''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iv);
            (4) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``.'' and inserting 
        ``; or''; and
            (5) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) incurred under the Federal Aviation Employees 
                Protection Act of 2011.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on July 23, 2011.

SEC. 3. USE OF TRUST FUND.

    Notwithstanding the expiration of section 48103(8) of title 49, 
United States Code, amounts in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund shall 
be available to pay personnel compensation and benefits for employees 
of the Federal Aviation Administration funded from appropriations or 
authorizations provided on or before July 22, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
A97A0514.

#### KING v. THE STATE.

(514 SE2d 484)

Decided January 19, 1999.

*Dwight L. Thomas,*for appellant.

*Keith C. Martin, Solicitor, Evelyn Proctor, Assistant Solicitor,*for appellee.

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

In *King v. State,*226 Ga. App. 576 (486 SE2d 904), this Court affirmed the decision of the State Court of Clayton County, overruling defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty pleas to accusations of driving while her license was in suspension and for giving a false name and false date of birth to a law enforcement officer. But on certiorari, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed. *King v. State,*270 Ga. 367 (509 SE2d 32). Consequently, our prior judgment is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is made the judgment of this Court. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Beasley, P. J, and Smith, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 4.1

Number                                                                    Shares





               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
                           ACI ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
                      AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE 75,000,000 SHARES

70,000,000 COMMON SHARES                              5,000,000 PREFERRED SHARES
PAR VALUE $0.01 EACH                                        PAR VALUE $0.01 EACH


This Certifies that                                              is the owner of

                                            fully paid and non-assessable Shares

               of the Common Shares of ACI ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
     transferable  only on the books of the  Corporation by the holder hereof in
person  or by duly  authorized  Attorney  upon  surrender  of  this  Certificate
properly endorsed.

     In Witness Whereof,  the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly  authorized  officers  and to be sealed  with the Seal of the
Corporation
                   this                      day of                   A.D.





SECRETARY                                                          PRESIDENT
A98A1756.

#### CLEGG v. THE STATE.

(511 SE2d 544)

Decided January 27, 1999

*Chestney Hawkins Law Firm, Robert W. Chestney, Tracy M. Delgado,*for appellant.

*Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, Joseph N. Walden III, W. Cliff Howard, Assistant Solicitors,*for appellee.

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and failure to maintain lane. *Held:*

Defendant was not denied due process under State or federal law based on the arresting officer’s refusal to allow him to have an independent blood test. Defendant forfeited his right to such independent testing by refusing the arresting officer’s request to submit to a state-administered breath test after being advised under OCGA § 40-5-67.1. *Allen v. State,*229 Ga. App. 435, 438 (2) (a), (b) (494 SE2d 229). The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motions to dismiss and motions in limine to exclude evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn and Eldridge, JJ, concur.*
33974.

#### SHELKEITH, INC. et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

Bowles, Justice.

We granted the writ of certiorari in this condemnation case to review the Court of Appeals’ opinion in *Shelkeith, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation,*146 Ga. App. 581 (246 SE2d 706) (1978), which held that under *White v. Ga. Power Co.,*237 Ga. 341 (227 SE2d 385) (1976), the factfinder’s refusal to award additional damages in a condemnation case is final and cannot be disturbed.

In light of our recent holding in *DeKalb County v.*
      *712
      *Trustees &c. B. P. O. Elks,*242 Ga. 707 (1978) in which *White,*supra, was overruled, the issue raised by this appeal has become moot. Therefore, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Submitted November 3, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978.

*Kimzey, Kimzey & Carter, Herbert B. Kimzey, M. Keith York, Tom Carter,*for appellants.

*Gross, Stowe & Shepherd, Millard B. Shepherd, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Nichols, C. J., Undercofler, P. J., and Hill, J., who concur in the judgment only.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3152

In Re: CORLIA NAOMI GREEN,

Debtor.

_________________________

CORLIA NAOMI GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JAMES GREEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

versus

MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

THOMAS L. LACKEY,

Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-95-3524-AW, BK-95-1-1082-DK)

Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996
2
3

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corlia Naomi Green, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph DiPaula,

COVAHEY & BOOZER, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying as untimely her motion for leave to appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court granting relief from an automatic stay. Finding no

reversible error, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. Midland

Mortgage Co., Nos. CA-95-3524-AW; BK-95-1-1082-DK (D. Md. Dec. 1,

1995). We deny Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal and we deny

Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1490 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to authorize 

additional funding for the pregnancy assistance fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2011 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to authorize additional funding for the pregnancy assistance fund. 

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 ‘‘Pregnancy Assistance 

5 Fund Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE PREGNANCY AS7 SISTANCE FUND. 

8 Section 10214 of the Patient Protection and Afford9 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18204) is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following: ‘‘In addition to amounts authorVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:22 Aug 04, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1490.IS S1490

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1490 IS

1 ized to be appropriated in the previous sentence, there are 

2 authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 10210, 

3 an additional $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 

4 through 2019.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
33986.

#### BUSBY v. BUSBY.

Submitted September 1, 1978

Decided October 17, 1978.

*Roy N. Newman,*for appellant.

*Robert Evans,*for appellee.

Per curiam.

The plaintiff "husband” sued for divorce asserting that his common law marriage to defendant was irretrievably broken. The defendant denied that a common law marriage existed. She proved that she had a prior undissolved marriage which lasted until shortly before a child was born to these parties.

The trial judge found that no common law marriage was entered into by these parties after the defendant’s divorce from her prior husband. The evidence was conflicting and hence there was evidence to support this finding. *Foster v. Foster,*178 Ga. 791 (3) (174 SE 532) (1934); *Spivey v. Spivey,*236 Ga. 725 (1) (225 SE2d 288) (1976).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
99-0605 (La. 4/23/99)

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Brian J. ROSSI.

No. 99-KK-0605.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: State of Louisiana; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Jefferson 2nd Parish Court Number 61-7053; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 98-KH-1253

Denied.

LEMMON, J. not on panel.

VICTORY, TRAYLOR, and KNOLL, JJ. would grant the writ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

No. 68571-6-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: JUL " 8 2013

S ooo

*—• CD OGUY ADAM ROOK,

Appellant.

I

oo

2?

o o

Per Curiam - Guy Rook appeals the order of restitution entered following

his conviction for vehicular assault. He contends his counsel was ineffective for

not contesting the restitution amount and challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting various items of restitution. The State concedes that the

restitution amount included a double billing for an emergency room visit and that

defense counsel was ineffective for failing to contest the restitution amount. We

accept the State's concession.

With regard to Rook'ssufficiency arguments concerning other items of

restitution, the State correctly points out that the superior court did not hold an

evidentiary hearing because defense counsel did not dispute restitution. In these

circumstances, the State contends, and we agree, that the matter should be

remanded for a restitution hearing at which Rook is represented by new counsel

and the State has an opportunity to present evidence on any disputed matters.

See State v. Saunders, 120 Wn.App. 800, 825, 86 P.3d 232 (2004) (where

counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to argue same criminal conduct,

court remanded for resentencing with new counsel); State v. Mendoza, 165

Wn.2d 913, 930, 205 P.3d 113 (2009) (when there was no objection to criminal
history at sentencing and history was challenged on appeal, proper remedy was

to remand for evidentiary hearing at which State could present evidence).

We accept the concession of error and remand for proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

For the court:

1

4~/<?./
No. 46395.

#### Protests 769603-G, etc., of F. S. Allenby & Co. et al.

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1531 

To provide a Federal regulatory moratorium, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

Mr. JOHANNS (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. THUNE, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. 

ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide a Federal regulatory moratorium, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Two-Year Regulatory 

5 Freeze Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL REGULATORY MORATORIUM. 

7 Except as provided in section 3, no department or 

8 agency of the United States shall publish new rules or reg9 ulations, or finalize or otherwise enforce or give lawful ef10 fect to draft rules or regulations until January 31, 2013. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1531 IS

1 SEC. 3. EXCEPTIONS TO MORATORIUM. 

2 Section 2 does not apply in the case of a rule excepted 

3 by section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code, from the 

4 requirements of that section or for which notice of pro5 posed rulemaking is not required under subsection 553(b) 

6 of title 5, United States Code. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### BRAINARD v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.

No. 46 C 2040.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Dec. 6, 1948.

Frank E. McAllister, of Chicago, 111., for plaintiff.

Thomas J. Barnett, Floyd J. Stuppi and Philip E. von Ammon, all of Chicago, 111., for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action in December, 1946, under the Federal Employers Liability-Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., seeking re-covery for damages for injuries received in< Newton, Kansas. On October, 29, 1948, after issue had been joined and the case was awaiting trial, defendant moved to. transfer the cause to the District Court of" Kansas under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a).

This type of motion is directed to. the discretionary powers of the Court and,, under normal circumstances, this Court, would promptly transfer the cause upon, timely motion by a defendant, where retention of it would work an injustice tOL. the defendant. However, the case at bar-has been on the trial call of the Court fora considerable length of time, and it is. contemplated that it will go to trial in approximately one week. In fairness to the parties and in the interests of the orderly-administration of justice, a determination of the matter should not now he further delayed.

The motion of the defendant, tp- transferr the cause is, therefore, denied.
No. 46988.

#### Protest 78837-K of Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dried ginger root, unground, the same as that involved in *Wilson*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 63, C. A. D. 126), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1768 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8440)

Entry No. DE 6211.

#### James Loudon & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided May 26, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The merchandise covered by this appeal consists of fuses imported from Switzerland.

> 2) At the time of exportation no foreign value, export value, nor United States value existed for such or similar merchandise, and the cost of production thereof was 87.93 Swiss francs per thousand pieces, said cost being comprised of the following:

> a) Material and fabrication_65. 14

> b) Usual general expenses_14. 83

> c) Packing_ . 22

> d) Profit_ 7. 74

> 87. 93

> 3)Upon this stipulation the appeal may be deemed to be submitted, and to be abandoned as to all other merchandise.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the fuses here involved, and that such value was 87.93 Swiss francs per thousand pieces.

*511The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Searched for **https://cfo.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://cfo.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.