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



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
undersigned, John R. Gibson, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Pacific Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of the Company (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ JOHN R. GIBSONJohn R. GibsonChairman of the Board of Directors, President &Chief Executive OfficerJuly 31, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1781 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1781

 To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify a provision relating 
                to the obligation and release of funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2015

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify a provision relating 
                to the obligation and release of funds.

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

SECTION 1. OBLIGATION AND RELEASE OF FUNDS.

    Section 118(c)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
        ``Any funds'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--Any funds'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
        (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Same class of funds no longer authorized.--If 
                the same class of funds described in subparagraph 
                (A)(i) is no longer authorized in the most recent 
                authorizing law, the funds may be credited to a similar 
                class of funds, as determined by the Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```
First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Managing Dealer Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED MANAGING DEALER AGREEMENT 
 This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED MANAGING DEALER AGREEMENT, dated as of October 24, 2008, is by and between CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the “Company”) and CNL Securities Corp., a Florida
corporation (the “Managing Dealer”). Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings provided in the Amended and Restated Managing Dealer Agreement (defined below). 
 WHEREAS, on November 1, 2006 the parties hereto entered into an Amended and Restated Managing Dealer Agreement (the “Amended and Restated
Managing Dealer Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto acknowledge that the Amended and Restated Managing Dealer Agreement is
in full force and effect; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Amended and Restated Managing Dealer Agreement as set forth
below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 Article 1, Section 1.6 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “Offering Period” means the period commencing on the initial effective date of the Registration Statement and ending on the earliest of the following: (i) December 31, 2008, or such later date at the Company’s
election and set forth in a prospectus supplement that is filed with the SEC; (ii) the acceptance by the Company of subscriptions for Shares having an aggregate offering price of $2,000,000,000, including Shares issued to investors who
participate in the Company’s dividend reinvestment plan; (iii) the termination of the Offering by the Company; (iv) the termination of the effectiveness of the Registration Statement; or (v) the termination of the Company.

 This Amendment shall be effective as of the date set forth above. Except as otherwise expressly amended hereby, all other terms and
conditions of the Amended and Restated Managing Dealer Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned have hereto set their hands as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	 COMPANY:
  
 CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust

		
	By:	 	/s/ Jack A. Cuneo
		 	 Name: Jack A. Cuneo
 Title: President and Chief
Executive Officer



  

			
	 MANAGING DEALER:
  
 CNL Securities Corp.

		
	By:	 	/s/ Jeffrey R. Shafer
		 	 Name: Jeffrey R. Shafer
 Title:
President
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1791 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1791

    To amend the Delta Development Act to include Vernon and Sabine 
     parishes in the definition of the term ``Lower Mississippi''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 2015

Mr. Vitter (for himself and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Delta Development Act to include Vernon and Sabine 
     parishes in the definition of the term ``Lower Mississippi''.

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

SECTION 1. VERNON AND SABINE PARISHES.

    Section 4(2)(D) of the Delta Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3121 note; 
Public Law 100-460) is amended by inserting ``Vernon, Sabine,'' after 
``Webster''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,477
<PP&E>                                           5,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,164
<BONDS>                                         11,191
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           227
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,032
<SALES>                                         14,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,157
<CGS>                                            8,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,085)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wnttrb**~tatr~ ~ourt** 

# of**§ppeaI~** 

# for !bejf 

# eberaI**~trcutt**
LANDMARK SCREENS, 

### LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. MORGAN, LEWIS, & 

### BOCKIUS, LLP, AND 

### THOMAS D. KOHLER, Defendants-Appellees.
2011-1297 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in case no. 08-CV-2581, Judge Jeremy Fogel. 

### ONMOTION
ORDER Landmark Screens, LLC moves for a 45-day extension of time, until July 21, 2011, to file its opening brief and moves for a 30-day extension oftime, until September 29, 2011, for the appellees' to file their responsive brief. Upon consideration thereof,LANDMARK SCREENS v. MORGAl\ LEWIS IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted.


## JUL 192011 Date

cc: Clark S. Stone, Esq. StevenP. Ragland, Esq. s21 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



### FilED 

## u.s. COURTOF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

## JUl 19 20t1

JANHORBALY 

### ClERK 2
" 

STANDARD FORM NO. &• 

TO 

FR.OM 

In this connection, 

that are already ava~lable. 

Copy to: 

.AFSA-OOB 

eclassifi ed and a 

.. ' . -:.J. 

/ .. :. · .. ::-~ 

for.my use at eubject confe;ren9e - • \ !,. • • ~-~ ;;, .. ·~~:."~ ,..1 - ... r •.I• ''-' • 1, I~ 

h ~c •" 

... 

I plan to use
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce VICKERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-5183

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 23, 1978.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 18, 1978.

C. S. Williams, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Pensacola, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Nickolas P. Geeker, U.S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., Clinton Ashmore, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals a conviction for kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201(a). We affirm.

After starting out to their attorney’s office to sign divorce papers, defendant drove his estranged wife from Panama City, Florida, to Waynesville, North Carolina, against her will, handcuffed part of the way, at the point of a gun part of the way, in such manner as would clearly support á jury’s factual finding of guilt.

Defendant contends the verdict is legally insufficient because the statute does not cover kidnapping of a spouse. In this case, where the parties were estranged and divorce proceedings had been instituted, *1058this contention must fail, regardless of any merit it might possibly have under other circumstances. *Chatwin v. United States,*326 U.S. 455, 66 S.Ct. 233, 90 L.Ed. 198 (1946), does not hold to the contrary. In that case, there was no showing the victim was restrained. She was free to leave if she desired, contrary to the facts here.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, there is no variance between the indictment and proof. Although defendant contends the purpose of the kidnapping was to discuss marital problems, the proof supports the indictment that defendant held the victim involuntarily for the purpose of frightening, physically abusing, handcuffing, mistreating, and assaulting her. The fact that his ultimate purpose was to get her to discuss their marital affairs does not eliminate from criminality the unfortunate means by which he sought to achieve that purpose.

Finally, defendant asserts, that 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201(a) is vague as' applied and overbroad. The word. “otherwise” in the statutory requirement that the kidnapping be “for ransom or reward or otherwise,” he says, is insufficient and too indefinite to warn an intelligent man that the statute proscribes intraspousal “kidnappings.” The statute is sufficient to inform a reasonable person that the taking of *any person,*at gunpoint, against, her will, handcuffed, from Florida to North Carolina, there to handcuff her to a bed and remove her clothes so that she will not escape, is proscribed regardless of the relationship of the parties. The fact that the victim was an *estranged*wife, to whom a divorce was to be granted a few days after the event, should have cleared up for defendant any vagueness he might have otherwise perceived in the conduct prohibited by the statute.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.2
NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
          Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesAct”), provides that if any part of a registration statement at the time suchpart becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact or anomission to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary tomake the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a securitypursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the timeof such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue,among others, every accountant who has consented to be named as having preparedor certified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared orcertified any report or valuation which is used in connection with theregistration statement, with respect to the statement in such registrationstatement, report or valuation which purports to have been prepared orcertified by the accountant.
          As previously disclosed in the MRV Communication Inc.’s form 8-K filed onJune 17, 2002, MRV dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent publicaccountants and announced that MRV had appointed Ernst & Young LLP to replaceArthur Andersen LLP as its independent public accountants.
          MRV’s understanding is that the staff of the Securities and ExchangeCommission has taken the position that it will not accept consents from ArthurAndersen LLP if the engagement partner and the manager for the MRVCommunications, Inc. audit are no longer with Arthur Andersen LLP. Both theengagement partner and the manager for the MRV Communications, Inc., audit areno longer with Arthur Andersen LLP. As a result, MRV has been unable to obtainArthur Andersen LLP’s written consent to the incorporation by reference intothe Registration Statements of its audit report with respect to MRV’s financialstatements as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended.
          Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits MRVCommunications, Inc. to file this Form 10-K without a written consent fromArthur Andersen LLP. As a result, however, Arthur Andersen LLP will not haveany liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untruestatements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited byArthur Andersen LLP or any omissions of a material fact required to be statedtherein. Accordingly, you would be unable to assert a claim against ArthurAndersen LLP under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any purchases ofsecurities under the Registration Statements made on or after the date of thisForm 10-K. To the extent provided in Section 11(b)(3)(C) of the Securities Act,however, other persons who are liable under Section 11(a) of the SecuritiesAct, including MRV’s officers and directors, may still rely on Arthur AndersenLLP’s original audit reports as being made by an expert for purposes ofestablishing a due diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.
91
rqi 

HANDLE VIA BYEMA 

CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY 

Colonel, USAF 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MAR 20 1968 DORIAN 

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL STEWART 

SUBJECT: Development of Master Photo Chip and Increased ACIC Support 

for MOL 

References: 

1. Memorandum from General Bleymaier, 19 February 1968, subject: 

 Special Materials Support Requirements for MOL. (Attachment 1). 

2. SPO briefing on MOL Error Budget and ACIC briefing on MOL 

 Support Activities, 27 February 1968. (Attachment 2). 

3. AFNIN letter, 12 March 1968, subject: Special Materials 

 Support Requirements for MOL. (Attachment 3). 

Attachment 1 presents a study by the SPO on the requirements for a 

 Master Photo Chip (MPC) to serve as a single source for integrating target 

 definition, accurate coordinates, training materials and on-orbit cue 

 materials. General Bleymaier supports the development of the MPC and 

 recommends that action be taken to increase the ACIC support effort which 

 will be needed in this development program. The requirements for accurate 

 target locations and more details on the MPC concept were presented to you 

 by the SPO and ACIC briefings on 27 February. Attachment 2 summarizes 

 these briefings. Attachment 3 is a letter from General Thomas, ACSI, which 

 recommends approval of the MPC concept for MOL, lists certain actions which 

 need to be taken to obtain authorization for the increased level of support 

at ACIC and suggests that AFNIN continue to explore with DIA and COMIREX 

any intelligence community requirements that should be considered in 

 development of the MPC. 

Attachment 4 is a letter to the ACSI which gives MOL Program Agreement 

to the MPC, but states that specific format and content will require further 

study and definition, requests AFNIN to take those actions necessary to 

Obtain authorization and to initiate increased level of support at ACIC, 

and commits MOL Program to fund $1.5 million for special equipment and 

software. Attachment 5 is a message to General Bleymaier informing him 

of these actions and requesting the SPO to begin studying in detail the 

on-orbit cue requirements so that these considerations can be included in 

development of the MPG. 

Recommend approval and signature of the letter at Attachment 4 and 

the message at Attachment 5. 

DORIAN 

5 Attachments 

a/s 

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY -49P-BRET-- 

Page 1 of 1 page 

Copy4t.of 4 copies 

SAFSL BYE 1911111111 , 

(01330g°G7
99-223.

#### Karr v. Borchardt.

Seneca App. No. 13-98-35. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 99-219 and 99-222, *supra,*and 99-224, *infra.*

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

would allow on Propositions of Law Nos. I, II, and III and hold this cause for the decision in 99-342, 99-348 and 99-618, *Holcomb v. State Farm Ins. Cos.,*Franklin App. No. 98AP-353.

Cook, J.,

would hold this cause for the decision in 99-342, 99-348 and 99-618, *Holcomb v. State Farm Ins. Cos.,*Franklin App. No. 98AP-353.
The Coordinator, 

AoFeSoAo 

MOPo2l39o 

8th June, 19510 

I Conrerenceuuon Security or 

!Czphers1 E"b 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

I have received the tollowizigsignal fromll\Y Director :-

" Please infonn Coordilla.tof that L.S.IoB.o has approved report. 

of Conference on I I C~ arui decided that it does 

not require approval ot h~~=: ~Authority o Memorandum 

to Chairman U.SoCoI,.B. followso 

TOP SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-12-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
#### Oneida County and another, Appellants, vs. Keppler and others, Respondents.

*February 21*

May *2, 1905.*

*Oneida Co. v. Tibbits, ante,*p. 9, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Oneida county: W. C. Silveethoen, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

Eor the appellants there were briefs by *8am. 8. Miller,*district attorney, and *Greene, Fairchild, North &*Parker, of counsel, and oral argument by *Geo. 0. Greene.*

*John Barnes,*for the respondents.

The following opinion was filed March 14, 1905:

Dodge, J.

This case, being in all respects material to the decision identical with *Oneida Co. v. Tibbits, ante,*p. 9, was heard therewith and is controlled thereby.

*By the Oourt.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment as demanded by the complaint.

Motions to modify the mandate and for a rehearing were denied, and the following amendment to the mandate was .filed, on May 2, 1905 :

*J3y the Court.*— The judgment and mandate of this court -rendered March 14, 1905, is now amended so as to read as follows, viz.:

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against all the defendants for the sum of $1,490.18, together with five per cent, damages and interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum from March 15, 1902, as also for costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1627 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1627

    To ensure the Secretary of State complies fully with reporting 
 requirements in section 116(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2015

  Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Kirk) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To ensure the Secretary of State complies fully with reporting 
 requirements in section 116(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

    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 ``Human Rights Accountability Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ON 
              HUMAN RIGHTS AND SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.

    Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available for a fiscal 
year for the Department of State for ``Diplomatic and Consular 
Programs'' and not designated for Worldwide Security Protection, 5 
percent shall be withheld from obligation for every 30 days after the 
deadline specified in subsection (d) of section 116 of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d)) that the Secretary of State 
submits the report required under such subsection.
                                 <all>
```
ENCLOSURE D

2008 0.075 ppm 8-HOUR OZONE

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) SIP SUBMITTAL

Planning Area: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Iteris, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Abbas Mohaddes, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                      The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ ABBAS  MOHADDES |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Abbas  Mohaddes          |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | November  1, 2010        |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or any other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----