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




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Amendment to annual report of SeaChange
International, Inc. (the “ Company ”) on Form
10-K/A for the year ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”), I,
William C. Styslinger, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
            
            The
      Company’s Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A 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.


/s/     WILLIAMC. STYSLINGER, IIIWilliam C. Styslinger,
    IIIChief Executive
  Officer,Chairman of the Board and
      Director


June 1, 2010




This certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission with this Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.




---
STATE v. GRAY

No. COA05-689

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Rowan (04CRS9854, 04CRS9855).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
HomeNewsCaribbean Mapping Expedition

# #ScienceAtSea

# Mapping the Seafloor

Creating a habitat ecosystem map of the seafloor is a tricky process. Learn how it works in this two-minute video.  Learn more.

### Transcript:

You might call this seafloor mapping central. These folks  are an overnight shift collecting multibeam sonar data on the NOAA Ship Nancy  Foster. 

Multibeam is used for updating NOAA nautical charts, but  here it’s also being used to map seafloor ecosystems. 

Here’s how it works. Multibeam sonar signals are sent out  from the ship.

With about 1500 sonar soundings sent out per second,  multibeam “paints” the seafloor in a fanlike pattern. This creates a detailed  “sound map” that shows ocean depth, bottom type, and topographic features.

But multibeam is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes  to creating habitat maps. 

Researchers also want to get a sense of what fish live in  the habitats they are mapping, so they use a second device called a split beam  sonar that specializes in finding fish in the water column.

The last step: remotely operated vehicles are deployed to  record video at different sites in the area being mapped. These video samples  serve to visually verify what the scientists are seeing with the sonar.  

Once this complex process is completed for one region of the  ocean, scientists can then create a finely-detailed ecosystem map.

This map can tell scientists and resource managers important  details, such as the distribution and health of a coral reef ecosystem or which  areas that certain species of fish prefer for spawning.

And that helps us better conserve and protect our ocean and  all the creatures that live there. 

Learn more at oceanservice.noaa.gov

###### **Search**

###### More **Information**

          - National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
          - Office of Coast Survey
          - Coral Reef Conservation Program 
          - NOAA National Geophysical Data Center's Online Water Column Sonar Data viewer 

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
STATE of North Carolina v. Glenn Devon McKINNEY.

No. 622PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Paul Herzog, Fayetteville, for Glenn Devon McKinney.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by the Attorney General on the 7th day of November 2005 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

*10Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Attorney General on the 7th day of November 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of November 2005 by the Attorney General 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE
COMPANY'S 1998 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                       120
<INVENTORY>                                      4,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,385
<PP&E>                                         102,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,609)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,922
<BONDS>                                         38,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,631
<SALES>                                         63,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,698
<CGS>                                           42,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (767)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,211)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,211)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

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



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     This schedule  contains restated summary  financial  information  extracted
from the consolidated  financial  statements of the Company for the period ended
December  31,  1996  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial  statements.   The  Company  changed  its  method  of  accounting  for
inventories  from LIFO to FIFO. See Note 15 of Notes to  Consolidated  Financial
Statements.

</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4,191,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,731,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   614,000
<INVENTORY>                                    10,572,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               31,301,000
<PP&E>                                         16,070,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 981,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 97,529,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,449,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       150
<OTHER-SE>                                     54,065,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   97,529,000
<SALES>                                        59,938,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               59,938,000
<CGS>                                          26,940,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,545,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,529,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,727,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,256,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,527,000)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,783,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.53)
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hasaan McWilliams, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 424]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 29, 2004, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record shows that he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter in the second degree *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666-668 [1988]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
72 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

Veritas Capital Fund Management, LLC $104.8 M

M. A. Mortenson Companies, Inc. $68.5 M

SAIC $64.8 M

Northrop Grumman $19.4 M

Calvert Systems Engineering, Inc. $16.7 M

CACI $16.0 M

Spiral Solutions & Technologies, Inc. $15.8 M

Milsup, LLC $14.7 M

FSA Construction $13.5 M

Metgreen Solutions, Inc. $13.5 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

NEBRASKA

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$998.8 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

16,558

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Sarpy 6,329 2,535 96 595 9,555

Lancaster 43 494 2,047 199 2,783

Douglas 85 897 240 541 1,763

Saunders 0 31 726 0 757

Adams 0 17 188 40 245

Hall ND 37 203 0 ND

Buffalo ND ND 153 31 ND

Platte 0 ND 117 44 ND

Dodge 0 ND 0 147 ND

Madison ND ND 95 21 ND

Construction: 16%

Research and

Service: 66% Development: 8%

Supplies and Equipment: 9%

Active Duty: 39%

Civilian: 25%

National 

Guard: 26%

Reserve: 10%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

20%

3%

71%

6%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

35%

4%

59%

1%

$0.7

$0.5

$0.7

$0.6 $0.6

$0.8

$0.6 $0.6

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#39 #40 0.3% $870 #42 #33 #37 #34

$1.7 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.1% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$0.6 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

16,558 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$77.6 M GRANT 

SPENDING
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 73

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

Scotts Bluff

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

Gage

FISCAL YEAR 2018 NEBRASKA

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Sarpy

Douglas

Lancaster

Madison

Thurston

Buffalo

Dawson

Gage

Adams

Saunders

(M = millions)

$537.4 M

$39.5 M

$27.2 M

$4.7 M

$4.3 M

$3.8 M

$2.2 M

$2.1 M

$1.9 M

$1.8 M

Sarpy

Lancaster

Douglas

Saunders

Hall

Buffalo

Adams

Platte

Cedar

Scotts Bluff

$714.5 M

$111.2 M

$103.8 M

$18.1 M

$10.0 M

$8.6 M

$5.7 M

$5.4 M

$3.9 M

$3.4 M

Thurston

Madison

Dawson

Buffalo

Buffalo

Hall

Adams

Adams

Saunders

Douglas

Sarpy

LancasterLancaster

LancasterLancaste

Saunders

Douglas

Sarpy

Platte

Cedar
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JOHN BURROWS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73883

Agency No. A013-016-711

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Michael John Burrows, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen and reissue its prior decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, and

FILED

OCT 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73883

review de novo due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th

Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Burrows’ motion to reopen

because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s April 19, 2005,

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within

90 days of the final order), and Burrows failed to establish that he acted with the

due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 894

(deadline can be equitable tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing

because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due

diligence”). 

To the extent Burrows seeks review of the BIA’s April 19, 2005, decision

denying his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review

is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. INS, 315

F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.

INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
3 08-73883
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5569 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 441
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5569

                          [Report No. 110-698]

     To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2008

Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                              June 5, 2008

                     Additional sponsor: Mr. Costa

                              June 5, 2008

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 
1153 note) is amended by striking ``for 15 years'' and inserting ``for 
20 years''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 441

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5569

                          [Report No. 110-698]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 5, 2008

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350)
Accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
 MarketAxess Holdings Inc. for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2011
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
 /s/ RICHARD M. MCVEYRichard M. McVeyChief Executive Officer  This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, nor shall it be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
LYNCH v. TWITTY.

No. COA05-1333.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CVS1289)

Case without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karl Smith, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 844]

Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered on or about February 19, 2004, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.