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**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of United Companies Corporation (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the United States
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 operation of the Company.


Date:
                May 15, 2007
            By:
            */s/ Robert M. Carmichael*Name:Robert
                M. CarmichaelTitle:Chief
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to United Companies Corporation and will
      be
      retained by United Companies Corporation and furnished to the United States
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2018337EN.01034201.xml

| 20.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/342 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/342

---

P8_TA(2017)0353

Protocol to the EU-Chile Association Agreement (accession of Croatia) ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 September 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Third Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (06750/2017 — C8-0225/2017 — 2017/0042(NLE))

(Consent)

(2018/C 337/41)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (06750/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (06750/2017),

| — | having regard to the Third Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (06905/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Third Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (06905/2017),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6) second subparagraph, point (a)(i) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0225/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6) second subparagraph, point (a)(i) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0225/2017),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0277/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0277/2017),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Chile. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
May 13, 2015 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building, Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 10772 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326 

Dear Sir I Madam: 

-··- _ .. ..., 

Please accept this letter as Frontier Airlines, Inc.'s request to extend Exemption No. 10772, 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326, The current exemption permits exemption from 

121.434 (c)(1 )(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to 

allow Frontier Airlines to substitute a qualified and authorized Check Airman and/or Aircrew 

Program Designee for an FAA Inspector to observe a qualifying Pilot In Command (PIC) who is 

completing initial or up-grade training specified in 121.424 during at least one flight leg that 

includes a takeoff and a landing. 

Frontier Airlines, Inc. is confident that granting an extension of the current Exemption No. 

10772, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326, would not reduce the level of safety, nor have 

an adverse impact on the interest of the aircraft owners or the government agencies. Frontier 

asserts that granting this extension is in the public interest since it will allow Frontier Airlines, 

to continue to provide reliable and timely service to the flying public by reducing the time that 

FAA Inspectors would be required to be away from the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

and would allow Frontier Airlines, greater flexibility in scheduling the required observations. 

Please contact me at 720-374-7500 with any questions. 

Cc. Bill Meehan Dave Welt J.P. Thibodeau Sandy Shepherd Jim Nides
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 504

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Post-

‘‘Ray Charles Post Office Building’’.Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as theal Service located at 4960 West Washington

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 504

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Ray Charles Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 504 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Ange4 les, California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ray

5 Charles Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Ray Charles Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2005.

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 09-9164.

#### In re Gene Scott, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1004, 130 S. Ct. 1926,

176 L. Ed. 2d 405,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2497.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4928 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for counting expenses for nonformulary drugs against the Medicare annual out-of-pocket threshold for costs for covered part D drugs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2006 

Mr. ROSS (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. DOYLE, and Mr. BERRY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to provide for counting expenses for nonformulary 

drugs against the Medicare annual out-of-pocket threshold for costs for covered part D drugs. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Doughnut 

5 Hole Assistance Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4928 IH 

1 SEC. 2. COUNTING EXPENSES FOR NONFORMULARY DRUGS 

2 AGAINST THE MEDICARE ANNUAL OUT-OF3 POCKET THRESHOLD FOR COSTS FOR COV4 ERED PART D DRUGS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–2(b)(4)(C) (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395w–102(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘, but does 

7 not include any costs incurred for covered part D drugs 

8 which are not included (or treated as being included) in 

9 the plan’s formulary’’ and inserting ‘‘, and includes costs 

10 incurred for covered part D drugs regardless of whether 

11 the drugs are included (or treated as being included) in 

12 the plan’s formulary’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a) shall be applied as if it were included in 

15 the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Im16 provement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

17 108–173). 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4882 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4882

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2006

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam 
War by designating a site for a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans 
                               Memorial.

    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 ``Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor 
Center Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. SITE.

     Section 6 of Public Law 96-297 is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(e) Site.--The visitor center authorized by subsection (a) shall 
be located in the open land in the triangular area between Henry Bacon 
Drive, NW, 23rd Street, NW, Constitution Avenue, NW, and the Lincoln 
Memorial.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 28, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
No. 09-9079.

#### Don Jones, Petitioner v. Minnesota.

560 U.S. 907, 130 S. Ct. 3275,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1188,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4031.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.

Same case below, 772 N.W.2d 496.
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of DakotaGrowers Pasta Company, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 31,2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 
| Date:  December 15,  2003 |                                     |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                           |                                     |
|                           | /s/ Timothy J. Dodd                      |   |
|                           |                                     |
|                           | Timothy J. Dodd                          |
|                           | *President and Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
exhibit10-3_4.htm


Exhibit 10.3.4


 


AGREEMENT REGARDING GRANTS OF INCENTIVE SHARES AND CLAWBACKS












This Agreement between East West Bancorp, Inc. (“Company”) and the employee referenced below (“Employee”) is entered into as of this 9th day of April, 2012 by and between Company and Employee.







Employee has outstanding stock options, restricted stock and / or restricted stock units of the Company that may vest upon a change in control of the Company.   Employee agrees that no such shares shall vest by reason of a change in control of the Company unless the Employee is terminated or unless Employee’s job is materially changed.  Employee’s job shall be considered materially changed if compensation is reduced, if duties are materially reduced, or if Employee’s principal place of employment is moved more than 25 miles from Pasadena, California.







In addition, Employee agrees that for any existing restricted stock and restricted stock units that Employee currently holds where the vesting is subject to performance metrics, the shares will be subject to “claw back” in event of a restatement of the financial statement on which the shares vesting is based. Employee shall be required to repay the Company the amount of the shares value in excess of what would have been paid based on the restated numbers. The claw back shall be required without regard to the reason for the restatement.







Except as expressly agreed to herein, the Employment Agreement between the parties shall remain in force and effect.







EAST WEST BANCORP, INC.







By: _________________________












____________________________


Employee: James T. Schuler
No. 09-9780.

#### Pierre Genevier, Petitioner v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.

559 U.S. 1090, 130 S. Ct. 2389,

176 L. Ed. 2d 765,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3635.

April 26, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of appeals of California, Second Appellate District, dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305, and cases cited therein.
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
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Brownie’s Marine Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 operation of the Company.
 
 Date:May 13,
      2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Robert
      M. CarmichaelName:
                  Robert
      M. CarmichaelTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Brownie’s Marine Group, Inc. and will be
retained by Brownie’s Marine Group, Inc. and furnished to the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 09-9254.

#### Terry Alvin Hyatt, Petitioner v. Gerald Branker, Warden.

559 U.S. 1043, 130 S. Ct. 2077,

176 L. Ed. 2d 426,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2803.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 569 F.3d 162.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Meru Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ihab Abu-Hakima, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
No. 11-7581.

#### Russell E. Robinson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1149, 132 S. Ct. 1062,

181 L. Ed. 2d 793,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 568.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5105 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5105

  To clarify that Arizona is in compliance with the Equal Educational 
  Opportunities Act of 1974 with respect to English language learners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2006

 Mr. Hayworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that Arizona is in compliance with the Equal Educational 
  Opportunities Act of 1974 with respect to English language learners.

    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 ``_______ Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. ARIZONA IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EQUAL EDUCATIONAL 
              OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1974 WITH RESPECT TO ENGLISH 
              LANGUAGE LEARNERS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Equal Educational 
Opportunities Act of 1974 (title II of Public Law 93-380; 20 U.S.C. 
1701 et seq.)--
            (1) the funding for English language learners provided 
        pursuant to Chapter Four of the State of Arizona's 47th 
        Legislature's Second Legislative Session is adequate; and
            (2) any failure of Arizona (or by any agency or subdivision 
        of Arizona) to provide funding for English language learners in 
        excess of the funding referred to in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) is not a denial by Arizona (or by any agency or 
                subdivision of Arizona) of equal educational 
                opportunity for purposes of section 204(f) of that Act 
                (20 U.S.C. 1703(f)); and
                    (B) is not a basis for a civil action, or for 
                relief, against Arizona (or against any agency or 
                subdivision of Arizona) under section 207 of that Act 
                (20 U.S.C. 1706).
    (b) Applicability to Current Litigation.--This Act applies to 
litigation pending as of the date of the enactment of this Act, 
including the litigation known as Flores v. Arizona.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4969 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4969

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory 
   treatment of the District of Columbia under the provisions of law 
               commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2006

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory 
   treatment of the District of Columbia under the provisions of law 
               commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act''.

    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 ``District of Columbia Hatch Act 
Reform Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME 
              RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY AS APPLY TO STATE AND 
              LOCAL EMPLOYEES.

    (a) Applicability of Provisions Relating to State and Local 
Employees.--Section 1501(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``a State or territory'' and inserting ``a State, the 
District of Columbia, or a territory''.
    (b) Provisions Relating to Federal Employees Made Inapplicable.--
Section 7322(1) of such title is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
            (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
            (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and
            (4) by striking ``services;'' and inserting ``services or 
        an individual employed or holding office in the government of 
        the District of Columbia;''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the effective 
date of a law enacted by the District of Columbia after the date of the 
enactment of this Act which places restrictions on political activities 
of employees of the District of Columbia government, and shall apply 
with respect to actions occurring on or after that date.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-10014.

#### Marcus Jermaine Pinkney, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1116, 130 S. Ct. 2418,

176 L. Ed. 2d 940,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3860.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 448.