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

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Cameron Drecoll, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 16,
2009

/s/ J. CAMERON DRECOLL J. Cameron Drecoll Chief Executive Officer


This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

109

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

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

I, John F. Corcoran, Chief Financial Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ John F. Corcoran
---------------------------
John F. Corcoran
Chief Financial Officer
#### *In re*HUBBARD, Edward

(MR 21052)

Chicago, IL

Order of the Court:

The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose discipline on consent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b) is allowed. Respondent Edward Hubbard is suspended from the practice of law for one year and until he pays all registration fees and penalties to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and until he makes restitution, as follows:

> Kimberly Wells $1,500

> Vivian Taylor $750

> Robert Franklin $607

*697Suspension effective October 12, 2006. Respondent Edward Hubbard shall reimburse the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-320-043]

Take notice that on April 19, 2001, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) filed with the Commission a contact between Gulf South and the following company for disclosure of a recently negotiated rate transaction. As shown on the contract, Gulf South requests an effective date of May 1, 2001.

Special Negotiated Rate Between Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP and AEP Energy Services, Inc., Contract No. 28691

Gulf South states that it has served copies of this filing upon all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this proceeding.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make                           ( print page 21132)                        protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10476  Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6716-01-M
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6387 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 337 West Clark Street in Eureka, California, 

as the ‘‘Sam Sacco 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 6387 EH

1 SECTION 1. SAM SACCO POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 337 West Clark Street in Eure4 ka, California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sam 

5 Sacco Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sam Sacco Post Office 

10 Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6387 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice Building’’. Eureka, California, as the ‘‘Sam Sacco Post Of- al Service located at 337 West Clark Street in
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10274]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Nevada Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10 a.m. 
and adjourn at 12 p.m. on May, 18, 2001, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 
4255 South Paradise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109. The purpose of the 
meeting is to plan future projects and discuss the Nevada Equal Rights 
Commission.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Philip Montez, Director of the Western 
Regional Office, 213-894-3437 (TDD 213-894-3435). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, April 17, 2001.
Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-10274 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Toporek, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — reckless endangerment, first degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.
#### Irene Ungar, as Assignee of Melvin D. Ungar, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Barry D. Lesser et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on or about June 10, 1988, which struck the answer of defendants-appellants (defendants), unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the answer reinstated, and appeal by defendants and cross appeal by plaintiffs-respondents, Irene Ungar and Melvin Ungar (plaintiffs), from an order of said court entered October 14, 1988, which vacated a default judgment against defendants, and directed an inquest to assess damages, is dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements, all on condition that counsel for defendant Barry D. Lesser pay the sum of $500 to plaintiffs, within 10 days of the entry of this order; if said condition, or any portion thereof, is not met, the aforementioned orders are unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendants.

In this action for breach of contract, defendants appeal from an order which struck their answer for willful and contumacious failure to timely comply with an order for discovery, and defendants further appeal from that portion of a second order which, after vacating a default judgment entered against them, directed an inquest on the issue of damages. Plaintiffs cross-appeal the latter order, to the extent that it vacated the default judgment.

Upon examination of the record and consideration of the conduct of counsel for defendant Barry D. Lesser, who represented both defendants during the discovery proceedings at issue, we conclude that a reversal, as conditioned hereinabove, is warranted.

We reach this determination in view of defendants’ eventual compliance with the discovery order, which, while tardy, preceded the hearing on the imposition of sanctions. *(See, Marsh v Lee & Sons,*34 AD2d 985.) Thus, the record does not reflect the "[ejxtreme conduct * * * required before imposition of the ultimate penalty — striking the answer in this instance”. *(Dauria v City of New York,*127 AD2d 459, 460.)

In light of the foregoing determination, we decline to address, at this time, the issues raised in plaintiffs’ cross appeal, which would be rendered moot upon reinstatement of defendants’ answer. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the New York Metro Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New York. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Friday, June 8, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eileen Cain at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an operational meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, June 8, 2001, 6 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. at the Internal Revenue Service Brooklyn Building located at 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. For more information or to confirm attendance, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Eileen Cain. Mrs. Cain can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. 

The public is invited to make oral comments from 8:30 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. on Friday, June 8, 2001. 

Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555, or write Eileen Cain, CAP Office, P.O. Box R, Brooklyn, NY 11201. The Agenda will include the following: various IRS issues. Note: Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice. 

Dated: April 24, 2001. 

John J. Mannion, 

Director, Program Planning Quality. 

[FR Doc. 01-10547 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6526 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6526

 To prohibit the payment of death gratuities to the surviving heirs of 
                     deceased Members of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2010

 Mr. Posey (for himself, Mr. Olson, Mr. Brady of Texas, Ms. Foxx, and 
  Mr. Paul) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the payment of death gratuities to the surviving heirs of 
                     deceased Members of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF GRATUITIES TO SURVIVORS OF MEMBERS OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) Prohibition.--No payment may be made from the applicable 
accounts of the House of Representatives, the contingent fund of the 
Senate, or any other appropriated funds for a death gratuity payment to 
the widow, widower, or heirs-at-law of any Member of Congress who dies 
after the commencement of the Congress to which the Member has been 
elected.
    (b) No Effect on Other Payments to Survivors.--Nothing in 
subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit or affect the payment to 
any individual of any unpaid balance or salary or other sums due to a 
Member of Congress who dies after the commencement of the Congress to 
which the Member has been elected.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, a ``Member of Congress'' means a Senator 
or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the 
Congress.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21

 

LIST OF IMCO RECYCLING INC. SUBSIDIARIES

 

Wholly owned unless otherwise indicated as of March 1, 2003.

 

 

1 

23.
  
IMCO Recycling of Michigan L.L.C., a Delaware limited liabilitycompany

24.
  
IMCO Recycling of Ohio Inc., a Delaware corporation

25.
  
IMCO Recycling of Utah Inc., a Delaware corporation

26.
  
IMCO Recycling Services Company, a Delaware corporation

27.
  
IMCO Recycling (UK) Ltd., a private company limited by shares and organized under thelaws of England and Wales

28.
  
IMSAMET, Inc., a Delaware corporation

29.
  
Imsamet of Arizona, an Arizona partnership (70%)

30.
  
Indiana Aluminum Inc., an Indiana corporation

31.
  
Interamerican Zinc, Inc., a Delaware corporation

32.
  
MetalChem Handel GmbH, a German limited liability company

33.
  
MetalChem, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation

34.
  
Midwest Zinc Corporation, a Delaware corporation

35.
  
Pittsburg Aluminum, Inc., a Kansas corporation

36.
  
Rock Creek Aluminum, Inc., an Ohio corporation

37.
  
Solar Aluminum Technology Services, a Utah partnership (50%)

38.
  
U.S. Zinc Corporation, a Delaware corporation

39.
  
U.S. Zinc Export Corporation, a Texas corporation

40.
  
VAW-IMCO Guß und Recycling GmbH, a German limited liability company(50%)

41.
  
Western Zinc Corporation, a California corporation

 

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Irvin Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), rendered May 20, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument and unlawful possession of marihuana, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

*599Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. The People presented the testimony of a police officer who observed the entire transaction through binoculars and the testimony of the police officers who quickly arrested the buyer of the heroin and recovered the heroin.

The defendant further contends that the trial court should have credited the testimony of the drug buyer, a defense witness, who testified that he did not buy the heroin from the defendant and was only given marihuana by the defendant. However, resolution of issues of credibility as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily questions to be determined by the fact finder who saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). The fact finder’s determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). In this case, the defense witness, who was a drug addict and a close friend of the defendant, had a substantial criminal record and gave an internally contradictory version of the events in question. Thus, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
(7 Misc. Rep. 707.)

#### MORSE v. THURBER et al.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

April 2, 1894.)

Appeal—Finding on Conflicting Evidence.

A finding on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, where there is sufficient evidence to support it.

Appeal from eleventh district court.

Action by Jamin S. Morse against Francis D. Thurber and others for work, labor, and services performed, and materials furnished. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered by the justice without a jury, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before BISCHOFF and GIEGERICH, JJ.

H. Aplington, for appellants.

Warner & Crawford, for respondent.

*36BISCHOFF, J.

This action was brought to recover for materials and labor furnished by plaintiff in the erection of a certain “Watchman’s recorder system” upon the defendants’ premises. The plaintiff’s cause rested upon a contract alleged to have been made through plaintiff’s agent, Morse, and defendants’ agent, Hinrick; and this appeal is based, substantially, upon the contention that no authority from the defendants to Hinrick to make the contract appears. To this we cannot accede. There is undisputed evidence that the plaintiff’s agent called upon the defendant Whyland, and had a conversation with him in regard to installing the plant in question; that the defendant Whyland then referred Morse (the plaintiff’s agent) to Hinrick, .and the negotiations ending in the order for the installing of such plant were carried on by Morse with such Hinrick. The defendants’ evidence is to the effect that the plant was installed at plaintiff’s instance, and at his own risk, and that the defendant Whyland so informed the plaintiff’s workmen while they were engaged in erecting the instrument. There is sufficient evidence to support the judgment, and to justify the rulings of the justice with regard to Hinrick’s statements, and upon the conflict which appears as to the intention of the parties the justice’s finding is not to be disturbed. Weiss v. Strauss (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 776; Schwartz v. Wechler, 2 Misc. Rep. 67, 20 N. Y. Supp. 861; Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522, 24 N. Y. Supp. 731. There are no extrinsic circumstances appearing in this case which would turn the balance of probability in favor of the appellants, and we are unable to hold that the'judgment is against the weight of the evidence. An examination of the exceptions fails to disclose any prejudice to the appellants. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
China Packaging Technologies, Inc. - Exhibit 10.30 - Filed by
   newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.30 

Lease Agreement 

(English Summary) 

	Date of Signing 	       
                 March 7, 2007 
	Lease Parties 	       
                 Hangzhou Shengming as lessee and
      Xiang He Qiao Village as lessor. 
	Lease Address 	                   Formerly
      Yuan Xiang Li Ancillary Machinery Factory, Xiang He Qiao Village, He Shang
      Town 
	Lease Area 	       
                 3,328.18 sqm (including the
      construction area of 850 sqm) 
	Term 	       
                 15 years, from March 1, 2007 to
      Feb 28, 2022 
	Rent 	       
                 RMB 50,000 per annual, payable at
      the end of March in each calendar year 
	Termination 	
      During the term of the Agreement, if lessee terminate the
      lease agreement, the lessor shall have the right to decide if this
      Agreement will be continued or terminated. In this circumstance, if lessor
      decides to terminate the Agreement, lessor shall notify lessee in writing.
      Lessee shall make sure the validity of its mailing address and notify
      lessor of any change of mailing address in writing, otherwise, when lessor
      sends the notice to lessee’s designated mailing address, the return date
      of the mail shall be deemed as the notice date.