alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Planet Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-1042) of our report, which
contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's ability to continue
as a going concern, dated March 4, 2005 on the financial statements of Planet
Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and for the years ended December 31,
2004 and 2003, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP

San Diego, California
March 29, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Jeffrey L. KarafaJeffrey L. KarafaTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer,
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51135 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICENTE HERNANDEZ-ENRIQUEZ, also known as Rafael Guzman-Bustamante, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-715-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Vicente Hernandez-Enriquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Hernandez-Enriquez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional.No. 02-51135 -2- Alternatively, Hernandez-Enriquez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Hernandez-Enriquez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Registrant

|SUBSIDIARY                   |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
|---------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Cymer (Barbados) Ltd.        |  | Barbados                     
|Cymer B.V.                   |  | Netherlands                  
|Cymer International, Ltd.    |  | Barbados                     
|Cymer Japan, Inc.            |  | Japan                        
|Cymer Korea, Inc.            |  | Korea                        
|Cymer Services, Inc.         |  | Nevada                       
|Cymer Singapore Pte Ltd.     |  | Singapore                    
|Cymer Southeast Asia, Ltd.   |  | Taiwan                       
|Active Control eXperts (ACX) |  | Delaware                     

---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5382

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6369

Dallas Airmotive, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2017

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2017

155496(64)

GERALD L. WISNER and KAY E. WISNER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, SC: 155496

v COA: 328867

Lenawee CC: 13-004674-CB

SB INDIANA, LLC, WBM, LLC, QUANTUM

MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENTS, LLC, and

GREGGORY HARDY, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________

THEODORE J. DORR and THEODORE J. DORR, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 155496

v COA: 333045

Lenawee CC: 12-004566-CB

WBM, LLC, QUANTUM MANAGEMENT &

INVESTMENT, LLC, and GREGGORY HARDY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the 

time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The 

answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before May 19, 2017.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Judith A. Vitale, Chief Financial Officer of Firstwave Technologies,
Inc.,, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual
report on Form 10-K of Firstwave Technologies, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this
annual 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 annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual
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 annual report;

4.  The registrants other
certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the Evaluation Date); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls; and

6.  The registrants other
certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material  weaknesses.

Date:  March 23, 2004

| | /s/ Judith
  A. Vitale    | 
| | ------------------------- | 
| |                           | 
| | Judith A.
  Vitale        | 
| | Chief
  Financial Officer | 

---

---
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Ener1,
      Inc.


500
      West
      Cypress Creek Road-Suite 100


Ft.
      Lauderdale, Florida, 33309





April
      6,
      2007





Securities
      and Exchange Commission


100
      F
      Street, NE


Washington,
      DC 20549





Re:
      Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350





Dear
      Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ener1, Inc.,
      for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission, I, Ajit Habbu, Chief Financial Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1)
            such
                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ener1, Inc., for the year ended December
                31, 2006, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ener1,
                Inc.,
                for the year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ener1,
                Inc.





/s/
                Ajit HabbuAjit
                Habbu
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer and
              Duly
                Authorized 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 Ener1, Inc. and will be
      retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.





In
      accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-B, this certification is being
“furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to Ener1, Inc.`s annual report and shall not be
      deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that
      section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under
      the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth
      by
      specific reference in such a filing.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6052

Aisin World Corp. of America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5316

Radio Systems Corp:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
exv10w2







Exhibit 10.2




COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT FOR ROBERT SALVONI



On March 2, 2010, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Harris
Interactive Inc. (the “Company”) approved a monthly bonus of 2,000 GBP (the “Monthly Bonus”), with
retroactive effect to November 2009, for Robert Salvoni, who, at that time, was the Company’s
Managing Director of Europe and Asia. The Monthly Bonus was awarded to Mr. Salvoni in recognition
of the significant time and effort expended by him in working to improve the financial performance
of the Company’s Asia operations. Mr. Salvoni received the Monthly Bonus for the last time in March
2010.



In connection with Mr. Salvoni’s appointment to President, International of the Company, on April
3, 2010, the Committee approved an increase in the base salary for Mr. Salvoni from 172,165 GBP to
195,000 GBP, with retroactive effect to the date he was appointed to this role, April 1, 2010. The
Compensation Committee concluded that this base salary increase was appropriate to compensate Mr.
Salvoni for the additional management duties and responsibilities assumed by him as a result of his
new role.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Theresa Q. Hoffmann, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Theresa Q. Hoffmann

Theresa Q. Hoffmann,

Principal Financial Officer

March 16, 2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2014

h1117

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2014

148477(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148477

COA: 317255

Lake CC: 12-005013-FH;

12-005014-FH

PAUL DEAN BURNS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28, 

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
**Exhibit10.26**

 

Description ofPresident/COO Bonus Plan: 2001-2003

 

 

1.  Purposeof the plan: For a period spanning 2 years, to retain Cymer president/COOand to provide additional incentive to operate within approved quarterlyfinancial budgets while (a) achieving/maintaining market leadership through thecurrent downturn, (b) executing the Company’s product roadmap, and (c)establishing the infrastructure necessary to deal with the next anticipatedindustry upturn.   The plan is separatefrom, and in addition to, the standard Cymer bonus framework.

 

2.  TimePeriod: The bonus plan is composed of two contiguous 12 month periods (eacha “Bonus Period”), the first beginning October 1, 2001 and ending September 30,2002: the second period beginning October 1, 2002 and ending September 30,2003.

 

3.  Measurementof Performance: Metrics and performance milestones for each Bonus Periodare agreed to in advance by the Chief Executive Officer and the President/COO,subject to approval of the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board ofDirectors.  The Chief Executive Officerwill meet quarterly with the President/COO to review achievement of relevantmilestones within that quarter.  At theChief Executive Officer’s discretion, for medium-term milestones, achievementmay be reviewed and based on performance over multiple quarters.  Achievement of milestones for each BonusPeriod is capped at 100%.

 

4.  PlanPayment: Payment is contingent upon the President/COO’s ongoing employmentat Cymer through the end of each Bonus Period and satisfactory achievement ofthe relevant milestones.  A singlepayment for each Bonus Period will be made at the conclusion of suchperiod.  The maximum amount payable withrespect to each Bonus Period is $1M.

 

5.  CompensationCommittee Review: The Chief Executive Officer shall review the plan’sstatus with the Compensation Committee near the conclusion of each Bonus Periodand prior to any plan payment, or at any other time upon the request of theCompensation Committee.

 

6.  Changeof Control: If the Company is acquired during a Bonus Period and thePresident/COO is terminated for reasons other than cause, the plan paymentswill become guaranteed.

 

1

----
Exhibit 99.10


                            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 American Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
statutory business trust Series I (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ending March 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of
Richman American Credit Corp., Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.



/s/ David Salzman
---------------------------
by: David Salzman
Chief Executive Officer of Richman
American Credit Corp., Manager
of the Company
June 30, 2003