alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

800 North Capitol Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20573 

Inspector General

December 31, 2020

Submitted Electronically to Russell.T.Vought@omb.eop.gov and 

Kimberly_P._Nelson@omb.eop.gov 

The Honorable Russell T. Vought 

Director

Office of Management and Budget 

725 17th Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20503 

SUBJECT: Review of FMC’s Compliance with Executive Order 13950 on Combatting Race 

and Sex Stereotyping 

This report communicates the results of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Office 

of Inspector General’s (OIG) review of the FMC’s compliance with Executive Order 13950 

(Executive Order) on Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping. The Executive Order states that it 

shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in 

the Federal workforce. The Executive Order also provides that it does not prevent agencies or 

Federal contractors from promoting diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent 

with the requirements in the Executive Order. The Executive Order sets forth specific requirements 

for contractors, grant recipients, agencies, and reporting to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 

The Executive Order also states that agency heads shall request from their Inspector 

General a review of agency compliance with the requirements of the Executive Order by the end 

of the calendar year, and not less than annually thereafter. In accordance with this requirement, on 

December 3, 2020, Chairman Khouri requested such a review from the OIG, and this report is the 

response to that request.

The objective of this review was to review and assess FMC’s compliance with the 

requirements of Executive Order 13950. The OIG review was limited to requirements applicable 

to FMC under the Executive Order. Specifically, we reviewed compliance with sections 4, 6, and 

7 of the Executive Order. The FMC is not a grant-making agency, so we did not assess compliance 

with section 5 requirements for Federal grants. Further, sections 1-3, and 8-10 of the Executive 

Order are explanatory, or not applicable to the FMC. 
2 

Based on the review performed, we found the FMC complied with the requirements of the 

Executive Order. The FMC included required provisions in a contract solicitation, incorporated 

requirements of the Executive Order into FMC operations, and submitted a spending report to 

OMB for an FMC employee training program conducted during fiscal year 2020 related to 

diversity or inclusion. 

Executive Order 13950 Requirements Complied

1 Section 4- Requirements for Government Contractors Yes

2 Section 6- Requirements for Agencies Yes

3 Section 7- OPM and OMB Review of Agency Training Yes

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me on (202) 523-5863 or 

jhatfield@fmc.gov. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Jon Hatfield

Inspector General 

cc: Kimberly P. Nelson, Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             173
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,972)
<INVENTORY>                                    196,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               358,138
<PP&E>                                         234,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,910)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 607,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,853
<BONDS>                                        399,282
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   607,193
<SALES>                                        775,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               775,153
<CGS>                                          619,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,041
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,702
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,755
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,947
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,947
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          76,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,894
<PP&E>                                         180,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           473
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,855
<SALES>                                         64,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,791
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,533)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (743)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,539)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,539)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 17, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0337

Lower Tribunal No. 20-248 AP

________________

Terry Henley,

Petitioner,

vs.

City of North Miami,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for MiamiDade County, Appellate Division, Daryl E. Trawick, Lisa S. Walsh, and 

Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judges.

The Amlong Firm, and William R. Amlong and Jennifer Daley (Fort 

Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Laura K. Wendell 

and Richard B. Rosengarten, for respondent.

Before MILLER, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Denied. See Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 

So. 2d 195, 199 (Fla. 2003) (“[Second-tier certiorari review is] limited to 

whether the circuit court (1) afforded procedural due process, and (2) 

applied the correct law.”); Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 

3d 1086, 1093 (Fla. 2010) (“[A] circuit court appellate decision made 

according to the forms of law and the rules prescribed for rendering it, 

although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as 

applied to facts, is not a departure from the essential requirements of law 

remediable by certiorari.”) (emphasis omitted); Miami-Dade County v. 

Snapp Indus., Inc., 319 So. 3d 739, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (concluding 

the circuit court applied the correct law despite the county’s argument that 

the circuit court reweighed the evidence presented at the evidentiary 

hearing); see also Espinoza v. Dep’t of Bus. & Pro. Regul., 739 So. 2d 

1250, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“The general rule is that, apart from 

statute, the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of an 

issue before an administrative tribunal.”).
**Exhibit        32**

**Certification        of the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial        Officer**

**Pursuant        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|         |                                                                                                                                      |                                                                 |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                                                      |
|    |                                                                                                                                 |                                                            |
|         | By:                                                                                                                             | */s/                    Kenneth S.                    Forster*  |
|         | Kenneth                      S. Forster,Chief                      Executive Officer, andPrincipal                      Financial Officer |
|         |                                                                                                                                      |

----
```

                           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 of Jacobson Resonance Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dr. Jerry I. Jacobson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
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 to the best of
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/ Jerry I. Jacobson
                                                ---------------------
                                                    Jerry I. Jacobson;
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Principal Financial Officer

November 26, 2002
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2732 

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student on 

whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes disabled. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2021 

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability 

if a student on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes disabled. 

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 ‘‘Domenic and Ed’s Law’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO PARENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 437(d) of the Higher 

7 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087(d)) is amended 

8 by inserting ‘‘or becomes permanently and totally disabled 

9 (as determined in accordance with regulations of the Sec10 retary), or if the student is unable to engage in any subVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:36 Jun 04, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2732.IH H2732

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2732 IH

1 stantial gainful activity by reason of any medically deter2 minable physical or mental impairment that can be ex3 pected to result in death, has lasted for a continuous pe4 riod of not less than 60 months, or can be expected to 

5 last for a continuous period of not less than 60 months,’’ 

6 after ‘‘dies,’’. 

7 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub8 section (a) shall apply to any outstanding loan received 

9 by a parent before, on, or after the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act, and without regard to the onset date of the 

11 disability or impairment. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of China Direct, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yi
(Jenny) Liu, Vice President of Finance 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

November 14, 2007                     /s/ Yi (Jenny) Liu
                                      ------------------
                                      Yi (Jenny) Liu, Vice President of Finance,
                                      and principal accounting and financial
                                      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
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3558 

To allow incumbent contractors to be eligible to re-compete for Government 

contracts as small businesses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 

Mr. GRIFFITH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To allow incumbent contractors to be eligible to re-compete 

for Government contracts as small businesses, 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 ‘‘Small Business Fair 

5 Competition Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3558 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPRESENTATION BY CONTRACTORS AS SMALL 

2 BUSINESSES. 

3 (a) ELIGIBILITY OF INCUMBENT CONTRACTORS TO

4 RE-COMPETE AS SMALL BUSINESSES.—In the case of a 

5 solicitation for bids or proposals by the Government for 

6 a proposed contract award, if the goods or services to be 

7 provided or performed under the proposed contract are 

8 substantially the same as the goods or services being pro9 vided or performed under a current contract, then the in10 cumbent contractor is eligible to re-compete for the pro11 posed contract as a small business if the incumbent con12 tractor represents in good faith that it is a small business 

13 in accordance with this section. Such representation may 

14 be made if— 

15 (1) the incumbent contractor meets the defini16 tion of a small business concern applicable to the so17 licitation and has not been determined by the Small 

18 Business Administration to be a concern other than 

19 a small business; or 

20 (2) the incumbent contractor was a small busi21 ness at the time of initial award of the current con22 tract to the incumbent, is no longer a small business 

23 at the time of the solicitation, and will revert to 

24 being a small business (as defined in the solicitation 

25 for the proposed contract) if not awarded the pro26 posed contract. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3558 IH

1 (b) SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE.—In the case of a 

2 proposed contract referred to in subsection (a) being 

3 awarded to the incumbent contractor, the Government 

4 may qualify the contract as a small business set-aside for 

5 the duration of the contract. 

6 (c) INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR DEFINED.—In this 

7 section, the term ‘‘incumbent contractor’’, with respect to 

8 a contract, means the contractor currently performing the 

9 contract. 

10 (d) AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGU11 LATION.—The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be re12 vised within 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

13 this Act to implement this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 20, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1428 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00193 -CR- MCR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us JOHN Q. DURFEY, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appea l from

the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 20, 200 8) Be fo re D U BIN A , BL A CK and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ch ri sto phe r N . P atte rs on, appoi nte d c ouns el f or Joh n Q . D ur fe y

in thi s dir ec t c ri m ina l a

ppe al , ha s m ove d to w ith dr awf ro m f urthe r re pr es en ta tio n of

the ap pe llant and f

ile d abr ie f pur suant t o A nde rs v. Ca lif or nia , 386 U . S. 738 , 87 S . Ct .2

1396 , 18 L . E d. 2d 4 93 ( 1967 ). O ur ind ep en de nt r ev ie wof

the e nti re r ec or d r ev ea ls that c ouns el ’ s a sse ssm en t of the r el at ive m er it of

the appe al is co rr ec t. B ec au se ind ep en de nt e xa m inatio n of the e nti re r ec or d r ev ea ls n o arg uable iss ue s of m er it, co unse l’ s m oti on t o w ith dr awis GRA NTE D , and D ur fe y ’ s c onvi ct ion s and sentences are AF FIRMED .
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Announcing the April 25th Presentation on Emerging Environmental Transportation Technologies","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tOg940iGgK\"><a href=\"\/announcing-the-april-25th-presentation-on-emerging-environmental-transportation-technologies\/\">Announcing the April 25th Presentation on Emerging Environmental Transportation Technologies<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/announcing-the-april-25th-presentation-on-emerging-environmental-transportation-technologies\/embed\/#?secret=tOg940iGgK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Announcing the April 25th Presentation on Emerging Environmental Transportation Technologies” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"tOg940iGgK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 13.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES‐OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of TAM S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20‐F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marco Antonio Bologna, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (i)          the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii)         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 13, 2011 By:/s/ Marco Antonio BolognaMarco Antonio BolognaChief Executive Officer


---