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 ACL Semiconductors Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chung-Lun Yang, Chief
Executive Officer 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) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
          as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of
          the Company for the periods presented.

Date: April 14, 2004                /s/ Chung-Lun Yang
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Chung-Lun Yang
                                    Chief Executive Officer of
                                    ACL Semiconductors Inc.

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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



Exhibit 10.35 Non-Employee Director Compensation Package
(for new directors joining the board after March 1, 2004)
Effective February 16, 2005 Initial Compensation  Restricted Stock Grant $100,000 of restricted stock based on fair market value at grant (that is, $100,000 divided
by the closing price = the number of shares)  
    Vesting ratably over a three-year period on each annual anniversary of the
date of grant Pro rated portion of Annual Stipend and Committee Chair Fee for period of year until next
annual shareholder meeting Annual Compensation Stipend  $30,000 either in cash or restricted stock, at directors election Audit Committee Chair Fee  $10,000 Compensation Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee Chair Fee  $5,000 Board Meeting Fee  $1,000 per meeting attended Committee Meeting Fee  $500 per meeting attended Annual Restricted Stock Grant  $25,000 of stock (at time of grant), with three-year
vesting schedule, issued annually on date of annual shareholder meeting, beginning with the
first annual shareholder meeting that occurs after the directors first anniversary of
being elected Reimburse director for cost of purchasing a Life Time Fitness family membership Terms Restricted stock will be granted under the Life Time Fitness 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan or
such other equity compensation plan as in effect from time to time. Stipend, if taken in cash, to be paid 50% on the date of shareholder election and 50% on the
six-month anniversary of such date. If stipend is taken in restricted stock, grant will be made on
date of shareholder election, at that dates closing market price (e.g. $30,000 divided by the
closing market price of Life Time Fitness stock on such date equals the number of restricted shares
of stock to be granted). Such restricted stock will vest on the one-year anniversary of such date. Committee Chair Fee to be paid in cash, 50% on the date of shareholder election and 50% on the
six-month anniversary of such date. Meeting Fees to be paid in cash at the end of each fiscal quarter for all meetings attended
during such quarter.
II-00253

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Russell Serrano <res555@msn.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 8:26 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Russell Serrano

Bugbee street

WRJ, VT 5001
Open Meeting of the Commission – Thursday, September 17, 2020

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Opening Statements

Chairman Heath P. Tarbert

Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz

Commissioner Rostin Behnam

Commissioner Dawn D. Stump

Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

3. Final Rule: Amendments to Real-Time Public Reporting Requirements (Part 43)

Final Rule: Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements (Part 45)

Final Rule: Amendments to the CFTC’s Regulations Relating to Certain Swap 

Data Repository and Data Reporting Requirements (43, 45, and 49 Verification) 

Staff Presentation (combined for the three matters) 

Dorothy DeWitt, Division of Market Oversight (DMO) 

Meghan Tente, DMO Eliezer Mishory, DMO

Benjamin DeMaria, DMO Thomas Guerin, DMO 

Richard Mo, DMO Matthew Jones, DMO 

Kristin Liegel, DMO

Kate Mitchel, Office of Data and Technology

Nancy Doyle, Office of International Affairs

Motion 

Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion

Votes 

[continued on next page] 
4. Final Rule: Registration with Alternative Compliance for Non-U.S. 

Derivatives Clearing Organizations

Staff Presentation

Clark Hutchison, Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) 

Eileen A. Donovan, DCR Tad Polley, DCR 

Motion 

Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion

Vote

5. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Part 190 Bankruptcy Regulations

Staff Presentation

Robert B. Wasserman, Division of Clearing and Risk

Motion 

Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion

Vote

6. Closing Remarks

7. Adjournment
# C_2011055EN.01003601.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2011 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case F-77/09) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary procedure - Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations - Impartiality - Reasonable time)

2011/C 55/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and J.-M. Stenier, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the ad hoc committee of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 removing the applicant from his post with effect from 1 February 2009 without reduction in pension.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009, p. 65.

1

---
GERMAINE R. RUDDICK , Appellant ,

v.

FLORIDA STATE PRISON , Appellee

. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3371

Opinion filed October 21, 2014. An appeal from an order of the Union County Circuit Court. Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge. Germaine R. Ruddick, pro se , Appellant

. No appearance for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM. Appellant s eeks review of a final order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because jurisdiction of this court was not invoked within thirty days ofrendition of the order to be reviewed, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b ). To the extent appellant seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, the petition is properly filed in the circuit

court. See , e.g. , Harvard v. Singletary , 733 So. 2d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 1999) (writ petitions that could require resolution of disputed issues of fact should be handled by the circuit courts). THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ. , CONCUR.

2
II-00254

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

John Cort <johnccort@yahoo.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 8:23 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

John Cort

1225 Bear Mtn Dr, Unit C

Boulder, CO 80305
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Lawrence Rychlak, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrants other certifying officer
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Lawrence Rychlak                                
|                        |  | Lawrence Rychlak                                    
|                        |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RICHARD D. LUPORI AND ALAN R. COYNE 

DOCKET NUMBER: 221 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 221 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Richard D. Lupori and Alan R. Coyne 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that during May 1972 while engaged as floor brokers on 

the Chicago Board of Trade, Mr. Lupori bucketed customers' orders and, with the 

assistance of Mr. Coyne, took the opposite side of customers' orders into his 

own account and offset customers' orders. It further charges that Mr. Coyne, 

with the assistance of Mr. Lupori, entered into accommodation and wash trades. 

In addition, it charges both Messrs. Lupori and Coyne with noncompetitive 

trading and with recordkeeping violations in connection with their trading. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when there has been a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. A determination is considered as having been made when a 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final or, after appeal, a 

decision is made by the Judicial Officer of the Department. Complaints are 

filed in the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and 

are a matter of public record. Pending disposition of a complaint, it is the 

policy of the CEA not to comment or elaborate on charges contained therein or to 

discuss evidence on which it is based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before the Administrative Law 

Judge in Chicago, Illinois, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>
            
<ARTICLE>                               5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                             95,544
<SECURITIES>                      223,693
<RECEIVABLES>                      16,000
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  545,237
<PP&E>                          3,586,300
<DEPRECIATION>                   (181,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,968,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,752,599
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                         1,300
<COMMON>                           18,828
<OTHER-SE>                      1,570,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4,968,637
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   10,020
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  118,229
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 30,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (138,209)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (138,209)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (81,338)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.004)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011319EN.01000401.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-447/09) (1)

1

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Airline pilots - Collective agreement - Clause automatically terminating employment contracts at age 60)

2011/C 319/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach

Applicants:

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Whether those rules are compatible with a collective agreement which provides, on grounds of air safety, that a pilot’s contract of employment terminates automatically at the end of the month in which that pilot reaches the age of 60

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may authorise, through rules to that effect, the social partners to adopt measures within the meaning of Article 2(5) in the areas referred to in that provision that fall within collective agreements on condition that those rules of authorisation are sufficiently precise so as to ensure that those measures fulfil the requirements set out in Article 2(5). A measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which fixes the age limit from which pilots may no longer carry out their professional activities at 60 whereas national and international legislation fixes that age at 65, is not a measure that is necessary for public security and protection of health, within the meaning of the said Article 2(5).

Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a clause in a collective agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that fixes at 60 the age limit from which pilots are considered as no longer possessing the physical capabilities to carry out their professional activity while national and international legislation fix that age at 65.

The first paragraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted to the effect that air traffic safety does not constitute a legitimate aim within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00317

- CV

Austin HELMLE and Harriet Marmon Helmle,

Appellants

v.

Thomas A. LAURIN , individually, Thomas A. Laurin Companies, Elegant Country Homes and

Elegant Country Homes, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09

- 315CCL

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of thi s date, we dismiss the appeal, set aside the

trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for

rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

SIGNED July 1, 2015.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam , Justice
EXHIBIT 3.1.1

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
TO THE
RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
FINET.COM, INC.

Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

FiNet.com, Inc.,
a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Company"), does hereby certify as
follows:

The
Company's Board of Directors, by unanimous written consent without a meeting pursuant to Section 141(f) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, adopted a
resolution setting forth an amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company and declaring said amendment to be advisable. The stockholders of the Company duly approved said
proposed amendment at the Company's annual meeting of shareholders in accordance with Sections 222 and 242 of the General Corporations Law of the State of Delaware. The resolution setting forth the
amendment is as follows:

NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Article 4 of the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, is to be amended by inserting the following paragraph:

"FOURTH:Capital Stock.The total number of shares which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is Fifty Million (50,000,000)
shares, consisting of One Hundred Thousand (100,000) shares of Preferred Stock, of the par value of one cent ($.01) per share (hereinafter called "Preferred Stock"), and Forty-nine Million
Nine-Hundred Thousand (49,900,000) shares of Common Stock of the par value of one cent ($.01) per share (hereinafter called "Common Stock")."

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, said FiNet.com, Inc. has caused this amendment to be signed by L. Daniel Rawitch its Chief Executive Office and Linda D. Sigler its Secretary this 29th day
of June, 2001.

| |  | By:     |  | /s/ L. Daniel RawitchL. Daniel Rawitch       
| |  | ------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
| |  | Attest: |  | /s/ Linda D. SiglerLinda D. Sigler, Secretary

---

QuickLinks