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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Helix Wind, Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q/ A for the period ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this
Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the
Company does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350) and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule
15d-14(b)  promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
November 18,  2009





/s/
      Ian
      GardnerIan
      GardnerChief
      Executive Officer
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 8 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 75
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 8 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 76
Case 1:10-cv-03367-NLH-KMW Document 7 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 66
Case 1:10-cv-03367-NLH-KMW Document 7 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 67
Case 1:10-cv-03367-NLH-KMW Document 7 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 68
Case 1:10-cv-03367-NLH-KMW Document 7 Filed 07/02/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 69
MICHAEL CHAZEN, ESQ.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4400 ROUTE 9 SOUTH - SUITE 1000 - FREEHOLD, NEW JERSEY 07728
1 GATEWAY CENTER, SUITE 2600, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102

TELEPHONE: (732) 303-0808
TELEFAX: (732) 303-0210

APPLICATION GRANTED-*

Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, USDJ
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07102

Re: United States v. Vincent Hsia Case # 11-00080
Dear Judge Wigenton:

The defendant’s current bail conditions as modified by Judge Shwartz
include GPS Monitoring and a curfew which allows him out between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Request is respectfully made that the
curfew be extended to the original hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. This is
based upon the fact that defendant wants to have as much time as possible
with his children, especially over the holiday break from school, while still
being able to run his laundromat business.

I do note that the Government has advised that they object to
modification of bail conditions. Pretrial Services indicates that Mr. Hsia has
been fully compliant, but does not take a position one way or the other on
this request. I submit that given the bail conditions (particularly the GPS) as
well as full compliance, Mr. Hsia’s request is genuine and properly granted.
If the court is not inclined to grant same as a modification until conclusion
of this case, I would at least ask that the curfew be changed as requested
until January 1, 2012. All other conditions will remain the same.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/
MC/cg Michael Chazen
#### A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc., Respondent, v New York City School Construction Authority, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 775]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated September 9, 2005, as, upon renewal, adhered to its prior determination denying those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and to impose monetary sanctions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Actions should be resolved on their merits whenever possible, and the drastic remedy of the striking of a pleading should not be employed without a “clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” *(Espinal v City of New York,*264 AD2d 806 [1999] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Byrne v City of New York,*301 AD2d 489, 490 [2003]; *Bach v City of New York,*304 AD2d 686 [2003]; *Payne v Rouse Corp.,*269 AD2d 510 [2000]). The Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the complaint, finding that the plaintiff substantially complied with outstanding discovery requests and that its conduct was not willful, contumacious, or in bad faith *(see Bach v City of New York,*supra; *Byrne v City of New York, supra; Vancott v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*271 AD2d 438 [2000]). For the same reasons, monetary sanctions were not warranted. Florio, J.R, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Federal Reserve Bank on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William F. Rountree, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: November 8, 2007 |  | /s/ William F. Rountree, Jr.       
|                       |  | William F. Rountree, Jr.,          
|                       |  | President & Chief Executive Officer
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICARDO CRUZAGOSTO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30152

D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00100-HRH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

H. Russel Holland, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Ricardo Cruzagosto appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for reduction of sentence. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cruzagosto contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendments 748 and 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo. 

United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court

FILED

JUN 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30152

correctly determined that it was without authority to reduce Cruzagosto’s 168-

month sentence, as that sentence was at the bottom of the amended advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting reduction of

sentence only where “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission”); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)

(“the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of

the amended guideline range”). 

Cruzagosto nonetheless argues that the district court should have treated his

four-level variance as a “guideline application decision[]” entitled to consideration

under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). The language of and commentary to section

1B1.10(b)(2)(A) squarely foreclose his position. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)

& cmt. n.3 (subsection (b)(2)(A) applies even where the district court imposed a

downward variance at sentencing).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------

                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

                           National Datacomputer, Inc.
          Statement recomputation of net income (loss) per common share


<TABLE><CAPTION>

                                                                           December 31,          December 31,
                                                                              2001                  2000
                                                                           -----------           -----------
<S>                                                                        <C>                   <C>
Net loss, as reported                                                      $(1,038,644)          $  (187,525)

Preferred stock preference items:

Warrant

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series C
          convertible preferred stock upon issuance

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series D
          convertible preferred stock upon issuance

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series E
          convertible preferred stock upon issuance

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series F
          convertible preferred stock upon issuance                        $      --             $      --

Interest on Series B, C, D and F convertible preferred stock               $  (269,625)          $  (304,005)
                                                                           -----------           -----------

Total preferred stock preference item                                      $  (269,625)          $  (304,005)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders                               $(1,308,269)          $  (491,530)

Weighted average shares outstanding:

A. Shares attributable to common stock outstanding                           9,282,232             4,527,144
                                                                           -----------           -----------

Weighted average shares outstanding                                          9,282,232             4,527,144
                                                                           ===========           ===========

Net loss per share                                                         $     (0.14)          $     (0.11)
                                                                           ===========           ===========
</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 06/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 52
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1320 

To reauthorize and improve the Department of Defense Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2019 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Ms. ERNST) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To reauthorize and improve the Department of Defense 

Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program. 

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 ‘‘Defense Small Busi5 ness Advancement Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF DE7 PARTMENT OF DEFENSE MENTOR-PROTE ́ GE ́

8 PROGRAM. 

9 (a) PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION.—Section 831 of 

10 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1320 IS

1 1991 (Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) is 

2 amended by striking subsection (j). 

3 (b) OFFICE OF SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS OVER4 SIGHT.—Section 831 of the National Defense Authoriza5 tion Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510; 10 

6 U.S.C. 2302 note) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (n) as sub8 section (o); and 

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (m) the fol10 lowing new subsection: 

11 ‘‘(n) ESTABLISHMENT OF PERFORMANCE GOALS

12 AND PERIODIC REVIEWS.—The Office of Small Business 

13 Programs of the Department of Defense shall establish 

14 performance goals and conduct periodic reviews of ap15 proved agreements between mentors and prote ́ge ́s.’’. 

16 (c) REMOVAL OF PILOT PROGRAM REFERENCES.— 

17 Section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

18 Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 

19 note) is amended— 

20 (1) in the subsection heading for subsection (a), 

21 by striking ‘‘PILOT’’; and 

22 (2) by striking ‘‘pilot’’ each place it appears. 

23 (d) INDEPENDENT REPORT ON PROGRAM EFFEC24 TIVENESS.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1320 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 31, 

2 2022, an independent third party selected by the 

3 Department of Defense Office of Small Business 

4 Programs shall submit to the congressional defense 

5 committees a report evaluating the effectiveness of 

6 the Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program established under sec7 tion 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

8 for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510; 10 

9 U.S.C. 2302 note), including recommendations for 

10 improving the program in terms of performance 

11 metrics, forms of assistance, and overall program ef12 fectiveness. 

13 (2) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES

14 DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘congres15 sional defense committees’’ has the meaning given 

16 that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United 

17 States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     114,830
<SECURITIES>                             5,704,675
<RECEIVABLES>                            8,082,765
<ALLOWANCES>                             1,300,000
<INVENTORY>                              8,178,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        21,117,221
<PP&E>                                  11,356,326
<DEPRECIATION>                           5,367,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          27,210,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    4,859,441
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   359,050
<OTHER-SE>                              18,439,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            27,710,867
<SALES>                                 27,154,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        16,462,477
<CGS>                                   29,671,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           (2,331,160)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         1,160,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           259,280
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (186,388)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                              (186,388)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                 (186,388)
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.02)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls 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: May 14, 2008
    /s/ RYUJI UENORyuji Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 131 (Friday, July 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16342]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical 
Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board 
[Request for Applications: Clinical Science Research and Development 
(RFA: ``CSR&D) Award for Investigators Associated with the National 
Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)'']; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a special emphasis review 
panel of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and 
Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit 
Review Board [RFA: ``CSR&D Award for Investigators Associated with the 
National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)''] will 
conduct a telephone conference call on Monday, July 27, 2009, from 11 
a.m. to 3 p.m. through the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of 
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
    The purpose of this special emphasis review panel of the Merit 
Review Board is to provide advice on the scientific quality, budget, 
safety and mission relevance of research proposals submitted for VA 
merit review consideration. Proposals submitted for review by the Board 
involve a range of specialties and subspecialties related to PTSD, 
substance use and abuse.
    This conference call will be open to the public for approximately 
one-half hour at the start of the session to discuss the general status 
of the program. The remaining portion of the conference call will be 
closed to the public for the review, discussion, and evaluation of non-
clinician credentials and research proposals to be performed for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, discussion and recommendations will 
deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy, as well as research information, the premature 
disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of 
proposed agency action regarding such research proposals.
    As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, 
closing portions of a meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C., 
552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B). Individuals wishing to participate in the 
call or who would like to obtain a copy of the conference call minutes 
and roster of the members of the review panel should contact LeRoy G. 
Frey, PhD, Chief, Program Review (121F), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 at (202) 461-
1664.

    Dated: July 6, 2009.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-16342 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Case 2:11-cr-00096-KSH Document 399 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 193
Case 2:11-cr-00096-KSH Document 399 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 194
Case 2:11-cr-00096-KSH Document 399 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 195
Case 2:11-cr-00096-KSH Document 399 Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 196
EX-10.39



 Exhibit 10.39 
 AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE SHARE AGREEMENTS 
 Pursuant to the
MetLife, Inc. 2005 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), MetLife, Inc. hereby amends each of your Management Performance Share Agreements (the “Agreements”) as of April 25, 2007, as follows (this
“Amendment”): 
 1. Section 7 of each Agreement is restated in its entirety as follows: 

7. Adjustments. The Committee will make appropriate adjustments in the terms and conditions of your Performance Shares in
recognition of unusual or nonrecurring events affecting the Company or its financial statements (such as a Common Stock dividend, Common Stock split, recapitalization, payment of an extraordinary dividend, merger, consolidation, combination,
spin-off, distribution of assets to stockholders other than ordinary cash dividends, exchange of shares, or other similar corporate change), or in recognition of changes to applicable laws, regulations, or accounting principles, to prevent
unintended dilution or enlargement of the potential benefits of your Performance Shares. The Committee’s determinations in this regard will be conclusive. 
 2. Any capitalized word used in this Amendment is defined in the Plan or each Agreement. This Amendment will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Delaware,
regardless of the law that might be applied under principles of conflict of laws. This Amendment, the Agreements, and the Plan represent the entire agreements between you and the Company, and you and all Affiliates, regarding your Performance Shares
and no other promises, terms, or agreements of any kind regarding your Performance Shares apply. In the event any provision of this Amendment is held illegal or invalid, the rest of the Amendment will remain enforceable. In no event will this
amendment be construed in a manner that would cause you to incur a penalty under Code Section 409A. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to execute this Amendment. 
  

			
	METLIFE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ C. Robert Henrikson
		 	Name
		
		 	Chairman of the Board, President and CEO
		 	Title
		
		 	/s/ C. Robert Henrikson
		 	Signature