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

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                              
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: August 13, 2009 |  | /S/ JON A. DELUCA            
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                       | 
|Dated: August 13, 2009 |  | /S/ CHARLES S. WIESENHART
JR.
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System


Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of Executive Order 
on Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: DoD announces an early engagement opportunity to support DoD 
implementation planning for an Executive Order titled ``Ensuring 
Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors.''

DATES: Early inputs should be submitted in writing via the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) website shown in the ADDRESSES 
section. Comments can be received up to 30 days after the date of this 
notice, but comments will be most useful if received by DoD within 7 
days after the date of this notice. The website will be updated when 
early inputs will no longer be accepted.

ADDRESSES: Submit early inputs via the DARS website at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/early_engagement.html or via email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9968a9dd79d9f988b8ab994989095d7949095"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0dfc3d49ed4d6d1c2c3f0ddd1d9dc9eddd9dc">[email protected]</span></a> and reference ``Early Engagement Opportunity: E.O. 
14042'' in the subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Moore, 571-372-6093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD is providing an opportunity for the 
public to provide early inputs on the Department's implementation of 
Executive Order (E.O.) 14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols 
for Federal Contractors. The public is invited to submit early inputs 
on E.O. 14042 via the DARS website at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/early_engagement.html. Comments can be received up to 30 days 
after the date of this notice, but comments will be most useful if 
received by DoD within 7 days after the date of this notice. The 
website will be updated when early inputs will no longer be accepted. 
Please note, this venture does not replace or circumvent the rulemaking 
process.

Jennifer D. Johnson,
Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2021-20189 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
THE RECOMMENDED PENALTY

Written by: Hearing Office Staff

Periodically parties will question the “recommended penalty” amount on an 

Enforcement Summary and also the preliminary penalty amount assessed by a 

Hearing Officer.

The recommended penalty amount reflected on an Enforcement Summary is 

simply an amount that the processing official recommends as appropriate for 

the cited violations. It is but one factor among many factors that the Hearing 

Officer considers. 

All too often, a processing official fails to articulate the factors that led to the 

determination of the recommended penalty amount thereby diminishing its 

usefulness as a factor for consideration by the Hearing Officer. Hearing 

Officers consider all evidence from the unit including any aggravating factors 

that are articulated and sufficiently explained.

It is important to understand that Hearing Officers are impartial and 

independent in the execution of their duties and are not bound by the 

recommended penalty amount. They make a determination as to the penalty 

amount based on the facts and circumstances of the violation.

Remember, the goals of the civil penalty amount are compliance and 

deterrence. Penalty amounts are formulated to gain mariner compliance with 

laws and regulations that the Coast Guard enforces and to deter mariners from 

future violations. 

For these reasons, the Hearing Officer’s preliminary penalty may be higher 

than the recommended penalty. The civil penalty process is not a process that 

seeks to punish mariners for violations as a criminal process might do. 

Therefore, penalty amounts are not determined in the context of being 

“punishment” for violations. In a case of a declined Notice of Violation (NOV), 

the party is not “punished” in the civil penalty process for declining the NOV. 
Penalty amounts are determined in such cases in the same manner as non-NOV 

civil penalty cases.

Additionally, it is important to remember that the recommended penalty is 

based on the unit’s view of the alleged violation. Often the final penalty is 

substantially lower than what the unit might have recommended. The unit at the 

time of determining the recommended penalty amount does not have the 

benefit of having seen or heard the party’s evidence. 

The Hearing Officer in formulating the final penalty considers all of the party’s 

evidence in defense, mitigation, and extenuation. It is this evidence that often 

causes the final penalty to be lower than the recommended penalty amount.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|Dated:    March 23, 2005                
|                                        
|/s/    DONALD H. HUNTER                 
|Donald H. Hunter Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
#### GIDEON, Respondent, v. DWYER, Appellant (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by David Gideon against Philip J. Dwyer. James C. Cropsey, for appellant. Otto Horwitz, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 1053, and 41 N. Y. Supp. 1116.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,335
<SECURITIES>                                     6,466
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,950
<ALLOWANCES>                                       751
<INVENTORY>                                      4,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,956
<PP&E>                                           1,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                     620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,169
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                        (183)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,199
<SALES>                                         23,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,537
<CGS>                                           17,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,424)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,424)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.20)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      39,243,000
<SECURITIES>                                42,591,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,791,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           104,172,000
<PP&E>                                      26,196,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             141,154,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       58,129,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               141,154,000
<SALES>                                    140,801,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           140,801,000
<CGS>                                       58,718,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,718,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,203,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,469,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,734,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,734,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
#### GORDON, Appellant, v. STRONG, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 27, 1896.)

Action by William Gordon against William L. Strong, mayor, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2383 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to change the eligible foods 

allowed for purchase under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as SNAP). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mr. RICE of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. BLUM, Mr. 

JONES, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. WEBER of Texas, 

Mr. COOK, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to change 

the eligible foods allowed for purchase under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known 

as SNAP). 

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 ‘‘Nutritious Options for 

5 Meals Act of 2015’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2383 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 3(k)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

3 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘any 

4 food’’ the first place it appears and all that follows 

5 through ‘‘consumption’’ the last place it appears, and in6 serting the following: ‘‘a supplemental food of the kind 

7 prescribed by the Secretary under section 17(b)(14) of the 

8 Child Nutrition Act of 1966, or lean meat or poultry as 

9 prescribed by the Secretary,’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ADDITIONAL
EXHIBIT 99.2



Certification of Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



We, David C. Collins and Gary R. Wright,
certify that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this
Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of the date first written below.



Dated May 8, 2003

/S/    DAVID C. COLLINSDavid C. Collins Chief Executive Officer   /S/    GARY R. WRIGHTGary R. Wright Chief Financial
Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Learning Tree International, Inc. and will be retained by Learning Tree International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ray v. The State.

Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake.

Arthur L. Brown, for appellant.

Charles G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for obtaining property under false pretenses.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
**Exhibit      10.47**

**Shenzhen      Ping An Bank**

**Loan      Certificate (2)**

| Applicant                             |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd                          |   | ID                card of the Applicant           |   | 73109958-5                                    |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |                                                                  |   |                                              |   |                                          |
| Currency                              |   | RMB                                                                   |   | Amount                                            |   | 20,000,000                                    |
|                                  |   |                                                                  |   |                                              |   |                                          |
| Loan                Term              |   | From                September 6, 2007 to September 6, 2008            |
|                                  |   |                                                                  |
| Usage                                 |   | Working                Capital                                        |
|                                  |   |                                                                  |
| Annual                rate            |   | 6.318                %                                                |   | Loan                type                          |   | Short-term                                    |
|                                  |   |                                                                  |
| Reference                Contract     |   | Shen                shangyin (Shuibei) Shouxinzi (2007) A110020700007 |
|                                  |   |                                                                  |
| Signature                of Applicant |   | Stamp                of Applicant                                     |   | Signature                of Shenzhen Ping An Bank |   | Stamp                of Shenzhen Ping An Bank |
|                                  |   |                                                                  |   |                                              |   |                                          |
|                                  |   |                                                                  |   |                                              |   |                                          |
| /s/                Xiangqian Li       |   |                                                                  |   |                                              |   |                                          |

----
#### Mendel v. Brooklyn City R. Co.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Trial—Instructions—Refusal to Charge.

Refusal to charge abstract principles is not error where all the principles applicable to the case have already been charged.

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by Marcus Mandel against the Brooklyn City Railroad Company.. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*George W. Wilson,*for appellant. *Morris & Whitehouse,*for respondent.

Dykman, J.

This action was commenced to recover for damage resulting to the plaintiff from an injury inflicted by the horses and car of the defendant. The action is based upon the negligence of the defendant, and the testimony upon the trial was quite contradictory. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed from the judgment entered thereon. The verdict is fully sustained by the evidence, and we cannot interfere upon the questions of fact involved after the verdict of the jury. At the close of the charge of the trial judge several abstract principles were submitted to him with a request to charge them as they were read. All the principles involved which were applicable to the case had been charged by the judge, and he declined to make any further charge. No error can be predicated upon such refusal, and therefore the exceptions are unavailing. The judgment and order denying a motion for anew trial should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### MARLER et al. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 31, 1916.)

No. 2768.

Railroads <@=400 — -Actions for Death — Direction ojt Verdict.

Where, in tin action against a railroad company for death, the evidence clearly established that the decedent was guilty of contributory negligence, and furnished no substantial support for a finding that those in charge of the engine liad a last clear chance to avoid injuring him after his peril was apparent, a verdict for defendant was properly directed.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 1365-1381; Dec. Dig. <@=400.]

In E.rror to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi; Henry C. Niles, Judge.

Action by John I. Marler and others against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. Judgment on a directed verdict for and plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

William H. Watkins, of Jackson, Miss., and James Wm. Cassedy, of Brookhaven, Miss., for plaintiffs in error.

Edw. Mayes, of Jackson, Miss., for defendant in error.

Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This action, although brought in the state of Mississippi, was to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate in the state of Louisiana.

The evidence clearly established that the plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence, and none of it was such as to fur*140nish substantial support for a finding that those in charge of the engine had a “last clear chance,” after his peril due to his negligence, was apparent, to avoid injuring him. In this state of the evidence, the direction of a verdict for the defendant below was proper. See Harrison v. Louisiana Western R. R. Co., 132 La. 761, 61 South. 782; May v. Texas, etc., Ry. Co., 123 La. 647, 49 South. 272; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Modawell, 151 Fed. 421, 80 C. C. A. 651, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 646.

Jones v. Mackay Telegraph Co. (La.) 68 South. 379, appears to have been decided on its peculiar facts, and does not affect the “last clear chance” doctrine, as declared in Harrison v. Louisiana Western Railroad Co., supra.

Judgment affirmed.