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 Quarterly Report of Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antonio
      F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. 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.





Dated:  November
      19, 2007





/s/
      Antonio F. Uccello, III


Antonio
      F. Uccello, III


Chief
      Executive Officer
James GOODSON, Employee-Plaintiff and N.C. Department of Insurance, ex rel. James Long, Commissioner, Intervenor v. P.H. GLATFELTER CO., Employer-Defendant. Langdon M. Cooper, Trustee in Bankruptcy for RFS Ecusta, Inc., Defendant and North Carolina Self-Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant.

No. 464P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Robert C. Paschal, John N. Fountain, Michael W. Ballance, Raleigh, for P.H. Glatfelter Co.

Neill S. Fuleihan, Timothy L. Finger, for James Goodson.

Langdon M. Cooper, Jesse V. Bone, Jr., Jason R. Shoemaker, Gastonia, for Langdon M. Cooper Trustee.

Clementine Peterson, for N.C. Dept. of Insurance.

*583Catherine Stuart, Charles C. Kyles, Raleigh, for N.C. Self-Ins. Guaranty.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant (P.H. Glatfelter Co.) on the 23rd day of August 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of August 2005 by Defendant (P.H. Glatfelter Co.) 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 3rd day of November 2005."
STATE of North Carolina v. Francisco LABOY.

No. 220P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

S. Mark Rabil, Winston-Salem, Lisa Andrew Dubs, for Francisco Laboy.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 26th day of April 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Catawba County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

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


<ARTICLE>                                 5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                    23,481,079
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          26,826,991
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            26,826,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4,049,638
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              26,826,991
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          63,638
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,237,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (3,173,997)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (3,173,997)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              (3,173,997)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (12.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (12.65)



</TABLE>
78 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

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

Lockheed Martin $1.7 B

SAIC $660.5 M

Harris Corp. $542.0 M

BAE Systems $181.6 M

TransDigm Group $171.7 M

Total S.A. $96.5 M

Triman Industries $77.2 M

Brighton Cromwell $77.1 M

Data Systems Analysts $76.3 M

Chugach Alaska Corp. $63.6 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

NEW JERSEY

#21 #38 1.5% $843 #20 #24 #22

$7.5 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.2% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $5.8 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

33,444 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.7 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.7 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

33,444

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Burlington 5,204 2,648 1,774 6,618 16,244

Morris 131 4,188 734 320 5,373

Ocean 283 2,295 782 37 3,397

Atlantic ND 324 1,374 96

Monmouth 267 314 514 468

Camden 34 77 333 268 712

Hudson ND 90 308 252

Bergen ND 28 405 131

Essex 69 33 433 ND

Mercer 25 80 213 177 495

Construction: 2% Research and

Development: 12%

Service: 18%

Supplies and

Equipment: 68%

Active Duty: 18%

Civilian: 31%

National 

Guard: 25%

Reserve: 26%

19%

32%

12%

38%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

47%

17%

34%

2%

$7.5

$5.4

$4.4

$5.2

$4.1

$5.5

$4.5

$5.8

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

1,563
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 79

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

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Passaic

Bergen

Morris

Essex

Union

Monmouth Mercer

Burlington

Ocean

Camden

NEW JERSEY FISCAL YEAR 2018

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Burlington

Essex

Passaic

Morris

Camden

Union

Ocean

Mercer

Monmouth

Bergen

(M = millions)

$2.1 B

$736.0 M

$735.0 M

$678.4 M

$315.7 M

$193.8 M

$175.0 M

$168.5 M

$161.1 M

$122.6 M

Burlington

Morris

Ocean

Monmouth

Atlantic

Camden

Mercer

Middlesex

Hudson

Essex

$767.8 M

$484.2 M

$248.6 M

$65.5 M

$52.9 M

$17.3 M

$15.9 M

$14.0 M

$13.5 M

$13.3 M

Middlesex Hudson

Monmouth

Mercer

Camden

Atlantic

Morris

Essex

Burlington

Ocean
STATE v. Roy Eugene BRYANT.

No. 173PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 18, 2004.

John J. Aldridge, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

Janet Moore, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bryant.

Seth Jaffe, Raleigh, for ACLU-Legal Foundation.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of October 2004 by ACLU-Legal Foundation for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of October 2004."
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1 Statement re computation of per share earnings

Earnings per share - basic, are based upon the Company's weighted average number
of common shares outstanding.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           2004     2003      2002
                                                          ------   ------   -------
                                                    (In thousands - except per share data)
<S>                                                       <C>      <C>      <C>
Net Income                                                $4,810   $3,544   $ 2,370
                                                          ======   ======   =======
Weighted average shares outstanding - basic                9,574    9,466    10,049
Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive options            503      567       209
Less: shares assumed repurchased                            (164)    (331)      (69)
                                                          ------   ------   -------
Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted              9,913    9,702    10,189
                                                          ======   ======   =======
Earnings per share - basic                                $ 0.50   $ 0.37   $  0.24
Earnings per share - diluted                              $ 0.49   $ 0.37   $  0.23
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-130159,
333-128741, 333-128740, 333-128738, 333-148793 and 333-148794) and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-109564,
333-111181 and 333-143162) of ArQule, Inc., of our report dated March 17, 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
March 17, 2008

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the annual report of SeaChange International, Inc. (the
Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin M. Bisson, Chief
Financial 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 Annual Report on
      Form 10-K 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/     KEVINM. BISSON                                                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|**Kevin M. BissonChief Financial
      Officer, Senior Vice President,Finance and
      Administration,Treasurer and
Secretary**

April 14, 2009

This
certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission with
this Annual Report on Form 10-K 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.

---
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5500 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide forbearance from foreclosures of subprime mortgages in the determination of a consumer 

credit score, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2008 

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

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide forbearance from foreclosures of subprime mortgages in the 

determination of a consumer credit score, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foreclosure Credit 

5 Forgiveness Act of 2008’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5500 IH

1 SEC. 2. FORBEARANCE IN CREATION OF CREDIT SCORE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 609 of the Fair Credit 

3 Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681g) is amended by adding 

4 at the end the following new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(h) FORECLOSURE ON SUBPRIME NOT TAKEN INTO

6 ACCOUNT FOR CREDIT SCORES.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A foreclosure on a 

8 subprime mortgage of a consumer may not be taken 

9 into account by any person in preparing or calcu10 lating the credit score (as defined in subsection 

11 (f)(2)) for, or with respect to, the consumer. 

12 ‘‘(2) SUBPRIME DEFINED.—The term ‘subprime 

13 mortgage’ means any consumer credit transaction 

14 secured by the principal dwelling of the consumer 

15 that bears or otherwise meets the terms and charac16 teristics for such a transaction that the Board has 

17 defined as a subprime mortgage.’’. 

18 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Board shall prescribe regu19 lations defining a subprime mortgage for purposes of the 

20 amendment made by subsection (a) before the end of the 

21 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

22 this Act. 

23 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

24 subsection (a) shall take effect at the end of the 30-day 

25 period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5500 IH

1 and shall apply without regard to the date of the fore2 closure. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
STATE v. SCOTT.

No. COA05-674.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from McDowell (01CRS4043, 01CRS4044, 01CRS51659, 02CRS1944).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
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

The undersigned, Drew Bonnell, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lutcam, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2007 (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 Lutcam, Inc.

Dated:  August 14, 2007

/s/ Drew Bonnell_________________________________________

Drew Bonnell
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lutcam, Inc. and will be retained by Lutcam, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
January  23, 1996
VIA EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

ATTN:     Office of Filings, Information and Consumer
     Services

RE:  Smith Barney Natural Resources Fund Inc.
     (the "Fund")
          File No. 33-7339

Gentlemen:

      Pursuant  to Rule 497(j) under the Securities  Act  of
1933, as amended, please accept this letter as certification
that   the   prospectus  and  the  statement  of  additional
information  for the above-referenced Fund does  not  differ
from  that contained in Post-Effective Amendment No. 20 (the
"Amendment") to the Fund's Registration Statement on Form-N
1A.  This Amendment was filed electronically on January  16,
1996 under Accession # 91155-96-23.

      Any  comments on this filing  should be  directed   to
Sean  McCormack,  of  Smith Barney Mutual  Funds  Management
Inc., at (212) 816-6591.

      Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence of
your receipt of this filing.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        /s/Caren Cunningham
                                        Caren A. Cunningham
                                        Vice President and
                                        Assistant General
                                        Counsel
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.2) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a/15d OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Cletus Glasener, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vought Aircraft
Industries, Inc. (registrant);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)
    
    (omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238);(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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 the
registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  (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 10, 2004 /s/ Cletus GlasenerCletus GlasenerVice President, Controller and Treasurer
STATE v. HOCKADAY

No. COA04-160

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Halifax (01CRS52748, 03CRS53210).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5321 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5321

 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of certain 
                        manufacturing equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

 Mr. Inglis of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of certain 
                        manufacturing equipment.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT ENTERED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 
              21, 1998, AND BEFORE JULY 10, 1999.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) or any other provision of law, 
not later than 90 days after the receipt of the request described in 
subsection (b), any article--
            (1) that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
        consumption--
                    (A) on or after October 21, 1998; and
                    (B) before July 10, 1999; and
            (2) with respect to which heading 9902.84.81, 9902.84.83, 
        9902.84.85, 9902.84.87 (as in effect on December 31, 2001), 
        9902.84.89, or 9902.84.91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
        the United States would have applied if such article had been 
        entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on 
        December 31, 2001,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if heading 9902.84.81, 
9902.84.83, 9902.84.85, 9902.84.87 (as in effect on December 31, 2001), 
9902.84.89, or 9902.84.91, whichever is applicable, applied to such 
entry or withdrawal, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refund any 
excess duty paid with respect to such entry.
    (b) Requests.--Liquidation or reliquidation may be made under 
subsection (a) with respect to any entry only if a request therefor is 
filed with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the 
Department of Homeland Security, not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, that contains sufficient information to 
enable the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--
            (1) to locate the entry; or
            (2) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located.
                                 <all>
```