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 annual report of China BAK Battery, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Xiangqian Li,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Xiangqian LiXiangqian
                Li*President
                & Chief Executive Officer*




December
      18, 2007
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 Annual report of E-City Software, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
C. Robinson, Chief Executive Officer, 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 my 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


     William C. Robinson
     -------------------
     /s/

     Name: William C. Robinson
     Title: Chief Executive Officer
     Date: July 14, 2004


A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise adopting the  signature
that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written
statement 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41585

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERRICK HARGROVE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-872-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Derrick Hargrove raises an 

argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-

09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not 

an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense. Nor is knowledge of drug type and 

quantity an element of an offense under either 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) or 21 U.S.C. 

§ 960(a). See United States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41585 Document: 00513557390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 15-41585

2

Cir. 1999); United States v. Restrepo-Granda, 575 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1978).

Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41585 Document: 00513557390 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5872 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5872

   To provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 2010 for 
 guaranteed loans that are obligations of the General and Special Risk 
  Insurance Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2010

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 2010 for 
 guaranteed loans that are obligations of the General and Special Risk 
  Insurance Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    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 ``General and Special Risk Insurance 
Funds Availability Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. ADEQUATE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year 2010 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may enter into 
commitments to guarantee loans, as authorized by sections 238 and 519 
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3 and 1735c), in an amount 
not exceeding $20,000,000,000 in total loan principal, any part of 
which is to be guaranteed.
                                 <all>
```
#### MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department

July 13, 1894.)

Payment—Void Assessment—Right to Recover Back.

Where a sewer assessment, valid on its face, is void because the contract was let without advertisement for proposals, an owner of assessed property may recover a payment made by him in ignorance of the invalidity.

Appeal from circuit court, New York county.

Action by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York against the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city of New York. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and BARRETT, JJ.

G. L. Sterling, for appellant.

Charles E. Miller, for respondent.

FOLLETT, J.

October 30, 1876, the defendant entered into a contract with Bartholomew Noonan for the construction of a sewer in a street on which a lot of the plaintiff abutted. The contract provided for the excavation of rock at a price agreed on, though the proposals for doing the work had not been advertised, as required by the statute then in force. Laws 1873, c. 335, § 91. In 1879 an assessment of $1,398.88, on account of work done under this contract, was levied against the plaintiff’s lot, of which sum $996 was for the expense of excavating the rock under the contract. Subsequently the plaintiff, in ignorance of the fact that the contract for excavating rock had been let without advertising for proposals, as required by the statute, and not knowing that the assessment for paying the cost of its excavation was void, paid to the defend*981ant the sum assessed, with interest. This assessment, though valid on its face, was void for want of jurisdiction. Jex v. Mayor, etc., 103 N. Y. 536, 9 N. E. 39; In re Merriam, 84 N. Y. 596. The plaintiff, having paid the assessment in good faith, and without notice of its invalidity, may maintain this action to recover the sum paid. Tripler v. City of New York, 139 N. Y. 11, 34 N. E. 729. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0263. ROBERT JAY DAVIS v. THE STATE.

RobertJay Davis appeals fromthe trial court’s August 19, 2015, order denying

his motion to modify a restraining order against him. Davisfiled both a discretionary

application, Case No. A16D0057, and this direct appeal, seeking review of the same

trial court order.

We denied Davis’s application for discretionary appeal on October 19, 2015. 

Because that denial was an adjudication on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata

bars this direct appeal. See Northwest Social & Civic Club, Inc. v. Franklin, 276 Ga.

859, 860 (583 SE2d 858) (2003); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 260-261 (1)

(649 SE2d 313) (2007). This appeal is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/30/2015

October 30, 2015
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 Quarterly Report of Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Alexandria Phillips, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: November 15, 2004                  /s/ Alexandria Phillips
                                         -----------------------
                                             Alexandria Phillips, Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-955]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 121599B]


Marine Mammals; File No. 782-1532-00

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory (NMML), National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 7600 Sand 
Point Way, NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070 [PI: Dr. 
Thomas Loughlin] has been issued a permit to take Steller sea lions 
(Eumetopias jubatus), Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), and 
harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and for purposes of scientific 
research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289);

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Johnson, 301/713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 2, 1999, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (64 FR 59163) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take had been submitted by the above-named 
organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine 
Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing the 
taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species 
(50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: January 10, 2000.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-955 Filed 1-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF MEADOWCRAFT, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,186
<PP&E>                                          81,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (20,380)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 141,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           197
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141,664
<SALES>                                         35,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,462
<CGS>                                           26,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,396
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,030)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,426
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
exv10w4







Exhibit 10.4




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 1 to Stock Option Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment,” is
made on this 31st day of December 2009, between ConAgra Foods, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the
“Company”) and Peter M. Perez, employee ID 3040501 (the “Optionee”), to amend that certain Stock
Option Agreement between the Company and the Optionee dated February 12, 2004 (the “Original
Agreement”).


Amendment to Original Agreement.




     Pursuant to the Original Agreement, Optionee was granted the following option for shares of
Common Stock under the ConAgra Foods 2000 Stock Plan (the “Plan”):



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Number of Shares:
	 	 	 	 	 	70,000	 
	Exercise Price Per Share:
	 	$	26.17	 	 	 	 
	Date of Grant:
	 	 	 	 	 	02/14/2004	 
	Type of Option:
	 	 			Non-statutory







	 	a)	 	Subject to (i) the Optionee’s execution of that certain Transition and Severance
Agreement to be dated as of even date herewith between the Company and the Optionee (the
“Transition Agreement”) and (ii) the Optionee not revoking the Transition Agreement within
the Revocation Period (as defined in the Transition Agreement), the Company amends the
Original Agreement effective upon the expiration of the Revocation Period to provide as
follows:






	 	(i)	 	Section 1(a)(ii) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:
	 
	 	(ii)	 	for a period ending three (3) years after the Optionee’s Continuous Employment
terminates for any reason. The options that may be exercised are those that are vested at
the time termination of employment occurs;






	 	b)	 	In the event that the Transition Agreement is revoked within the Revocation Period,
this Amendment shall be void and of no further force or effect.
	 
	 	c)	 	All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Optionee have caused this Amendment to be executed
effective as of the date first written above. The Company and the Optionee acknowledge that this
Amendment includes two pages. The Optionee acknowledges reading and agreeing to both pages and
that in the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment or the Original Agreement and
the terms of the Plan, the Plan shall control. Capitalized terms used herein without definition
have the meaning set forth in the Plan.



52









 





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CONAGRA FOODS, INC.	 	OPTIONEE	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Gary M. Rodkin
 

	 	/s/ Peter M. Perez
 

	 	 






53
COMPLIANCE 

Written by Alicia Scott and YN2 Christopher Brown

The civil penalty process at the Coast Guard Hearing Office is remedial in 

nature, or in other words, the process is meant to “remedy” parties’ 

noncompliance with laws and regulations. The goals of our process 

are compliance and deterrence.

Since compliance is a goal, it is necessary that when a party provides proof of 

compliance after receiving a warning or violation that the compliance is 

immediately

documented. Often a party, upon learning that he or she is not in 

compliance with a law or regulation, will remedy the noncompliance 

immediately. The party generally wants to tell the Coast Guard that 

he or she has remedied the noncompliance and proceeds to a local 

Coast Guard unit to do that. The party may show new visual distress 

signals or vessel numbers newly affixed to his or her vessel to a 

USCG member and receive a “well done.” But the USCG member 

must do much more. That USCG member should enter the 

compliance into the boarding activity in MISLE or if unable to do so, 

notify the unit that conducted the boarding so that the unit can 

enter the compliance in MISLE. Also, if the violation has been 

forwarded to a processing official for civil penalty action, the 

processing official should be notified. The processing official can then 

take appropriate action at his or her level, or if the violation has 

already been referred to the Coast Guard Hearing Office, the 

processing official should then notify the Coast Guard Hearing Office 

of the compliance. 

If the party has shown compliance before the violation has been sent to the 

Coast Guard Hearing Office and no further civil penalty action is 

desired, then there is no reason to refer that violation to the Coast 

Guard Hearing Office. Often, after a party has shown compliance, 

the unit or processing official refers the violation to the Coast Guard 
Hearing Office with a recommended penalty amount of $0. This 

conveys to the Coast Guard Hearing Office that no civil penalty 

action is desirable and causes us to wonder why the violation was 

referred to us. If a unit or processing official desires that the Coast 

Guard Hearing Office consider a “Warning” in such a case, then the 

recommended penalty amount should reflect “Warning.” In such a 

case, it would be helpful to include an explanation as to why a 

warning is being recommended after the party has shown proof of 

compliance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY>   U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,492,513
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,800,486
<PP&E>                                          38,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,659,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          378,001
<BONDS>                                      2,636,181
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,505
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,363,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,659,839
<SALES>                                        127,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,118
<CGS>                                          133,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               213,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             142,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (272,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (272,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (272,487)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>