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

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Xianfu Zhu, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of
             operations of the Company.


Date:   September 18, 2006                By:/s/ Xianfu Zhu
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              Xianfu Zhu
                                              Chief Executive Officer


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

        This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss.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.
$12.3

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY18 FY19

$11.5 $11.4

$7.8 $8.7 $8.5 $8.3 $7.9

FY17 FY20

ALABAMA 

#12 #7 2.5% $3,011 #11 #18 #12

$14.8 B SPENT IN 6.4% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $11.4 B CONTRACT 51,967 NUMBER OF $3.4 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and Construction: 2%

Development: 15%

Supplies and

Equipment: 36% 

Service: 47%

By Service 

Army

54%

Navy/Marines

9%

Air Force

9%

Other Defense

28%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 13% Active Duty: 15%

National 

Guard: 23%

Civilian: 48%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

72%

Navy/Marines

2%

Air Force

18%

Other Defense

7%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

Boeing $1.1 B

Northrop Grumman $668.8 M

SAIC $660.1 M

M1 Support Services $537.7 M

Torch Technologies $490.0 M

Defense Systems and Solutions $464.3 M

Parsons Corp. $301.6 M

Collazo Enterprises $245.7 M

Dynetics $241.4 M

KBR $201.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$3.4 BILLION 51,967

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

Madison 689 13,923 477 726 15,815

Montgomery 2,790 3,311 2,727 2,108 10,936

Dale 3,730 2,241 40 138 6,149

Calhoun 40 3,740 967 372 5,119

Jefferson 302 403 1,959 1,850 4,514

Mobile 45 801 839 790 2,475

Tuscaloosa 16 86 255 265 622

Houston 47 39 285 78 449

Lee 51 19 129 247 446

Coffee 0 152 281 0 433

18 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 19

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 ALABAMA 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Madison

Dale

Mobile

Montgomery

Calhoun

Baldwin

Limestone

Talladega

Jefferson

Shelby

(M = millions, B = billions)

$8.9 B

$819.1 M

$469.5 M

$286.1 M

$264.5 M

$164.2 M

$90.4 M

$77.7 M

$60.8 M

$40.8 M

Madison

Montgomery

Dale

Calhoun

Jefferson

Mobile

Tuscaloosa

Coffee

Lee

Houston

$1.6 B

$623.4 M

$437.2 M

$273.1 M

$169.0 M

$103.7 M

$16.5 M

$15.4 M

$12.4 M

$12.3 M

Limestone Madison

Calhoun

Jefferson

Talladega

Shelby

Montgomery

Dale

Baldwin

Mobile

Madison

Calhoun

Jefferson

Tuscaloosa

Mobile

Dale

Montgomery

Lee

Coffee Houston
BERSIN v. GOLONKA

No. COA04-695

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed May 17, 2005

Certification Date June 6, 2005

Appeal from Mecklenburg (99CVD7786-LCB).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
SCOT-19-0000499

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

ORIGHOYE DENNIS IYONSI, Petitioner,

vs.

HAWAI#I POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent. 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Orighoye Dennis

Iyonsi’s “Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae,” filed as

a petition on July 10, 2019, and the record, it appears that

petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief

from this court. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 17, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCOT-19-0000499

17-JUL-2019

10:07 AM
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XI, L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of the General Partner ofthe Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief: 

 

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

 

(2)    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
STATE v. FRANKLIN

No. COA05-87.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from Franklin (04CRS50105, 04CRS3461).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
John Alan HOLDEN v. Wayne J. SMITH.

No. 445P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Ralph S. Pennington, Wilmington, for Wayne J. Smith.

Benedict J. Del Re, Jr., for John A. Holden.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th day of August 2005 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      46,343,591
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,418,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    799,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,830,402
<PP&E>                                       7,221,032
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,173,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,818,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,207,418
<BONDS>                                      1,040,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,613
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,386,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,818,875
<SALES>                                     20,034,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,034,536
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,359,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,124,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,715,218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,408,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,408,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.7







Director Compensation 
The compensation program for non-employee Directors is shown in the following table: 
	
			
	 	Compensation Element
	Non-Employee Director Compensation (1)(2)

	 
	 	Board Chairman Annual Retainer
	$125,000

	 	Board Member Annual Retainer 
(other than Board Chairman)
	$70,000

	 	Audit Committee Chair Retainer
	$25,000 

	 	All Other Committee Chair Retainers
	$15,000 

	 	Technology Liaison
	$10,000 

	 	Share-based Compensation
	Fair value on the date of the respective awards is used to determine the number of Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs") awarded.
An annual award of $110,000 in RSUs following the Annual Shareholder Meeting.  $110,000 in RSUs if joining the Board within six months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting, $55,000 in RSUs if joining more than six months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting but before the next Annual Shareholder Meeting.
All awards have a 1-year vesting period.

	 	Basic Group Term Life Insurance
	Premium for $10,000 face amount

	 	Business Travel Accident Insurance
	Premium for $100,000 coverage




		
	(1)
	Annual retainer fees are paid following the Annual Shareholder Meeting each year.  The annual retainer fees are prorated to the extent that a non-employee Director joins the Board after the Annual Shareholder Meeting. 


		
	(2)
	Non-employee Directors may elect to defer cash compensation into RSUs. 




Last Revision Date:  May 22, 2019
VII 

Private Calendar No. 4 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5243 

[Report No. 110–826] 

For the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

Mr. REYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

For the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR KUMI 

4 IIZUKA-BARCENA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Kumi Iizuka-Barcena shall be eligible for issuance of 

8 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5243 RH

1 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 

2 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 

3 under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status 

4 to lawful permanent resident. 

5 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Kumi Iizuka6 Barcena enters the United States before the filing dead7 line specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to 

8 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 

9 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 

10 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act. 

12 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

13 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap14 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica15 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

16 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Kumi Iizuka-Barcena, the Secretary of State 

20 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 

21 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 

22 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

23 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

24 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 

25 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5243 RH

1 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

2 202(e) of such Act. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Private Calendar No. 4 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5243 

[Report No. 110

–826] 

A BILL 

For the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena. 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE.

No. 130A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

G. Patrick Murphy, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*514The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of February 2005 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of August 2005."
68 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

MISSOURI 

#16

$12.2 B SPENT IN 

#12

3.3% OF STATE GDP

2.2%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$1,979

PER RESIDENT 

#14

$10.5 B CONTRACT 

#20

42,815 NUMBER OF 

#27

$1.7 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and 

Construction: 1% Development: 3%

Supplies and

Equipment: 72%

By Service 

Army

16%

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

18%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 17%

National 

Guard: 27%

Civilian: 19%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

9%

Air Force

20%

Other Defense

2%

Service: 24%

29%

38%

Active Duty: 36%

69%

Top Defense Contractors 

Boeing

Express Scripts

Leonardo SpA

World Wide Technology

Olin Corp.

Cerner Corp.

AECOM

Melrose Industries

McCarthy HITT - Next NGA West, JV

Enersys

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$12.5 $12.0

FY19 FY20

$10.5 $9.6

$6.8 $6.2

FY15

$5.8 $6.2

FY14 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY21

$1.7 BILLION 42,815

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Pulaski 10,480 3,094 281 

Johnson 3,852 1,073 1,091

Jackson 89 856 942 

St. Louis 61 332 1,490

Greene 21 271 946

St. Louis City 250 979 0 

Buchanan 13 300 1,276

Cole 22 339 809 

St. Charles ND 113 0 

Cass 0 25 130 

(M = millions, B = billions)

$6.9 B

$742.5 M

$476.5 M

$414.6 M

$333.1 M

$181.2 M

$84.0 M

$68.1 M

$60.7 M

$60.5 M

Reserve

396

990 

1,840

1,147

660

475 

77 

108 

860

407 

Total

14,251

7,006

3,727

3,030

1,898

1,704

1,666

1,278

ND 

562
FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018 MISSOURI

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Buchanan

Boone

Cole

Greene

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

St. Louis

Jackson

Pulaski

Clay

Johnson

Jasper

Atchison

St. Charles

St. Louis City

Jefferson

(M = millions)

$8.8 B 

$459.9 M

$255.3 M

$207.6 M

$134.1 M

$101.7 M

$93.2 M

$92.2 M

$91.0 M

$48.9 M

Pulaski

Johnson

Jackson

St. Louis City

St. Louis

Cole

Buchanan

Greene

St. Charles

Boone

$617.0 M

$342.5 M

$158.5 M

$115.8 M

$91.8 M

$68.5 M

$64.2 M

$49.4 M

$31.1 M

$16.5 M

Clay

Jackson

Johnson

Jasper

Atchison

St. Louis

St. Louis City

Jefferson

Pulaski

Jackson

Johnson St. Louis

St. Louis City

St. Charles

St. Charles

Pulaski

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 69

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS
Baldassare AMATO, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-515

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

*983Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
STATE v. Christopher Edward GOSS.

No. 316A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 13, 2005.

Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of September 2005 by Defendant for extension of time for court reporter to deliver transcripts:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 11th day of November 2005 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of September 2005."
☐

☐

☐

U.S. Office of Special Counsel

1730 M Street NW, Suite 218

Washington, DC 20036-4505

 certification@osc.gov

U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s 

Certification Program Registration Form

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel's (OSC) Certification Program allows federal agencies to meet the 

statutory obligations of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(c), the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act, and 

the Office of Special Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2017. In addition to the existing requirements of the 

program, these statutes require agency heads to ensure that their employees receive yearly information 

about whistleblower protection laws and to provide annual supervisory training on how to respond to 

complaints involving whistleblower protections. If you have any questions about completing this form or 

OSC’s Certification Program, please contact OSC’s Diversity, Outreach, and Training Unit at 

certification@osc.gov.

Please refer to our Certification Process Instructions. 

Registering Agency or Office:

Agency and OIG

Agency 

OIG 

Component (please indicate parent agency)

Please provide the contact information for the official responsible for implementing OSC's 

Certification Program (the individual’s name and phone number will be placed on OSC’s 

website as the point of contact once the agency is certified).

Name:

Title:

Email:

Phone:

Address (to send certificate):

General Information

Contact Information
☐ ☐

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

☐ ☐

1. List the agency components included under this registration and in certification efforts:

2. Approximate number of supervisors in agency:

3. Approximate number of non-supervisory employees:

4. Estimated target date for completion of program:

5. Do all employees have email capabilities? Yes No

6. Do all supervisors have Internet access? Yes No

7. Does your agency have video-teleconferencing, Skype or webcast capabilities? Yes No

8. Does your agency sponsor supervisory training? Yes No

9. In what manner and how often does your agency conduct new employee orientation?

Signature of official responsible for 

implementing OSC’s Certification 

Program:

Agency Information

Confirmation of Registration
Roy C. HYMAN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. EFFICIENCY, INC., d/b/a Trojan Labor.

No. 7P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 29, 2005.

Robert J. Willis, for Roy C. Hyman.

M. Robin Davis, for Efficiency, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of January 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of July 2005."
LIFE TIME WINDOWS AND SIDING, INC. v. McLAWHORN

No. COA04-1444

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Pitt (02CVD1903).

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.
STATE v. TURNER

No. COA04-1240.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Forsyth (03CRS52880, 03CRS24761).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
Darrell REYNOLDS, Petitioner v. CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY, LAUREL COUNTY

No. 18-9269

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the annual report on Form
10-K of Marine Exploration, Inc. for the period ending June 30, 2009:

(1)  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
     aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Marine
     Exploration, Inc.



/s/ Mark Goldberg
--------------------------
Mark Goldberg
Chief Executive Officer
September 28, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Marine Exploration, Inc. and
will be retained by Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.



<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 March 20, 2002


Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

     RE:      ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP REPRESENTATIONS

Dear Madam or Sir:

         In connection with Arthur Andersen LLP's audit of the financial
statements of Introgen Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company") for the six-month
transition period ended December 31, 2001, Arthur Andersen LLP has made the
following representations to the Company:

         1. The audit was subject to Arthur Andersen LLP's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards;

         2. There was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen LLP personnel
working on the audit;

         3. Consultation with the national office of Arthur Andersen LLP
regarding the audit was available; and

         4. Personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen LLP were
available to conduct the relevant portions of the audit, where applicable.

         Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      /s/ James W. Albrecht, Jr.

                                      James W. Albrecht, Jr.
                                      Chief Financial Officer



Copy to: David Winn, Arthur Andersen LLP