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





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sino Clean Energy Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief:





(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 the operation of the Company.





Dated: August 15, 2011By:
/s/ Baowen RenBaowen RenChief Executive OfficerDated: August 15, 2011By:
/s/ Wen (Wendy) FuWen (Wendy) FuChief Financial Officer
From: Szabo, Aaron

To: Fisher, Brian; Risley, David

Cc: Stenhouse, Jeb

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone

 NAAQS (RIN 2060-AS05)

Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:57:18 PM

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866_13563 EPA CSAPR Update NPR....docx

Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the

 draft proposed rule entitled, Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Aaron L. Szabo

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

202-395-3621

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1916 

To exclude ecosystem component stocks of fish from certain annual catch 

limits and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2011 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, 

Mr. THUNE, Mr. BEGICH, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To exclude ecosystem component stocks of fish from certain 

annual catch limits 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 ‘‘Fishery Science Im5 provement Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC DATA FOR ANNUAL 

7 CATCH LIMITS. 

8 (a) SCIENTIFIC DATA REQUIRED FOR ANNUAL

9 CATCH LIMITS.—Section 104(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1916 IS

1 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization 

2 Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–479; 16 U.S.C. 1853 note) 

3 is amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

5 end; 

6 (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para7 graph (5); and 

8 (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(3) shall not apply to a stock for which a stock 

11 assessment has not been performed during the pre12 vious 6-year period, if the Secretary has determined 

13 pursuant to section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

14 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 

15 U.S.C. 1854(e)) that— 

16 ‘‘(A) the fishery is not subject to over17 fishing of that stock; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the stock is not overfished; 

19 ‘‘(4) shall not apply to an ecosystem component 

20 stock; and’’. 

21 (b) ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT STOCKS.—Section 104 

22 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Man23 agement Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109– 

24 479; 120 Stat. 3584) is amended by adding at the end 

25 the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1916 IS

1 ‘‘(e) ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT STOCK.— 

2 ‘‘(1) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term 

3 ‘ecosystem component stock’ means a stock of fish 

4 that the Secretary determines— 

5 ‘‘(A) is a nontarget stock; and 

6 ‘‘(B) is not subject to overfishing or over7 fished. 

8 ‘‘(2) PRIOR DETERMINATIONS.—Ecosystem 

9 component species as determined by the Secretary of 

10 Commerce prior to the date of the enactment of the 

11 Fishery Science Improvement Act of 2011, shall be 

12 determined to be ecosystem component stocks as de13 fined by paragraph (1) after such date of enact14 ment.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2015107EN.01003901.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/39

---

Order of the General Court of 4 February 2015 — Gretsch-Unitas and Gretsch-Unitas Baubeschläge v Commission

(Case T-252/12) (1)

(2015/C 107/51)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 38452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7511]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``King Amenemhet II''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``King Amenemhet II,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or 
display of the exhibit object at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, New York, from on or about July 15, 2011, until on or about July 
15, 2021, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
description of the exhibit object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 22, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-16453 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
No. 96-5883.

#### Prechtl *v.*Witkowski, Warden, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 74-779.

#### Louisiana *v.*Saia.

Sup. Ct. La. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.
# C_2015127EN.01002101.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Nissan Jidosha v OHIM (CVTC)

(Case T-572/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Request for renewal of the Community figurative mark CVTC - Partial renewal - Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 127/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama, Japan) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by F. Mattina, and subsequently by P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1), relating to a request for renewal of the registration of the Community figurative mark CVTC.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Nissan Jidosha KK to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Nissan Jidosha KK to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1

---
# C_2016222EN.01004002.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 3 May 2016 — Aprili and Kilian v Commission

(Case F-18/12) (1)

((Civil service - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years, made by the appointing authority or the AECE, accepted by the person concerned - Withdrawal of that proposal - New proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years based on new general implementing provisions - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 222/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sophie Aprili (Pont-à-Celles, Belgium) and Karin Kilian (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent, and lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to transfer the applicants’ pension rights, acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission, on the basis of the PMO’s recalculated proposal.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Sophie Aprili and Karin Kilian shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sophie Aprili and Karin Kilian shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12/5/2012, p. 34.

---
# C_2014315EN.01002402.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

(Case C-481/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees - Article 31 - Third country national who has entered the territory of a Member State after passing through another Member State - Use of the services of human traffickers - Unauthorised entry and stay - Presentation of a forged passport - Criminal penalties - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 315/36

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Bamberg

Party in the criminal proceedings before the referring court

Party in the criminal proceedings before the referring court

Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Germany), by decision of 29 August 2013 in Case C-481/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

1

---
1 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. -1- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________ No. 02-20561 SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________ JUAN E. VENTURI

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. KENNETH STARLING; C. SILVA; N. A. WEIMAN, JR.; LEE P. BROWN, Mayor

Defendants - Appellees

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

(H-02-CV-11)

______________________________________________________________________________ January 6, 2003 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Juan E. Venturi filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that several state actors participated in a racially motivated conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional right to procedural and substantive due process. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Venturi’s complaint pursuant to F ED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6). The district court-2-

granted the defendants’ motion without reasons and Venturi now appeals. Asserting that the district court could not have based its dismissal on Rule 12(b)(2), (4), or (5) because the 120-day period within which he had to perfect service upon the defendants had not expired, Venturi argues that the district court erroneously dismissed his complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). However, Venturi merely recites his conclusional factual allegations and provides no legal analysis in support of his argument against a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Although this court construes pro se pleadings liberally, even pro se litigants must abide by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See United States v. Wilkes , 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). By inadequately briefing this issue, see Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993), Venturi has failed to show that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. AFFIRMED.
# C_2013171EN.01001101.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Others

(Case C-128/13)

2013/C 171/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

Applicant:

Defendants: IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to give a preliminary ruling, in the light of the arguments of the parties, on the interpretation to be given to Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 (1) and Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985, (2) in relation to the ‘release’ of the security provided in the context of Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87.

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5).

2

---
Schedule of Executive Officers



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PARTY TO THE 
 2007 CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
 Each of the parties identified below is party to a change in control agreement (“2007 CIC Agreement”) with Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. substantially in the
form of Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. for the quarter ended June 29, 2007: 
  

					
	 Name of Executive
	  	 Benefit Level Under
 Section 6 of the
 2007 CIC
Agreement
	  	 Benefit Level Under
 Section 8 of the
 2007 CIC
Agreement

	 Angelo Rago
	  	Two Times	  	Two Times
	 Michael J. Lambert
	  	Two Times	  	Two Times
(Reap. Dec. 9109)

#### Carl Fischer Musical Instrument Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 93582, etc.

(Decided March 26, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson for*the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:'

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that in the absence of any foreign, export or United States value, the value of the imported musical instruments marked with the letter “A” and checked R. D. E. (Examiner’s initials) by Examiner Russell D. Evans (Examiner’s name) embraced in the invoices and covered by the entries.the subject of the Appeals to Reappraisement noted on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof, is the cost of production and that such cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is equal to the invoice values.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there is no foreign, export or United States value for such or similar merchandise.

> *762IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reap-praisement referred to herein may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the musical instruments in question, as hereinabove identified, is cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and I hold that such statutory value for these articles is equal to the invoice values. Judgment will he rendered accordingly.
No. 54364.

Suit 4626.

#### M. Pressner & Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1164 affirmed April 3, 1950. C. A. D. 431.
# C_2013026EN.01006402.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/64

---

Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)

(Case T-509/12)

2013/C 26/127

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanso Group Oy (Nokia, Finland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 147/2011-4 and reject the opposition; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 147/2011-4 and reject the opposition; and

| — | Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEEN VOGUE’, for among others goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 3529476

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registration No 126124 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Swedish trade mark registration No 43934 for the figurative sign ‘Vogue’, for goods in class 25; Finish trade mark application No T 199 803 628 for the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Registered auxiliary trade name ‘VO Gue’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
No. 74-5819.

#### Tocco et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company")
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 11, 2005                          Jonathan Ilan Ofir
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Jonathan Ilan Ofir
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

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