alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2










I, Connie Lai, certify that:






1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Global Sources Ltd.




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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The company’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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;




(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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 an evaluation; and




(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.






Date: June 27, 2011


/s/ Connie LaiConnie Lai,Chief Financial Officer
### §152302. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation are—

(1) to provide the member organizations with a forum for the free discussion of problems affecting national musical life in this country;

(2) to speak with one voice for music whenever an authoritative expression of opinion is desirable;

(3) to provide for the interchange of information between the various member organizations;

(4) to encourage the coordination of efforts of the member organizations, thereby avoiding duplication or conflict;

(5) to organize exploratory surveys or fact-finding commissions whenever the corporation considers them necessary for the solution of important problems; and

(6) to encourage the development and appreciation of the art of music and to foster the highest ethical standards in the musical professions and industries.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1412.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 152302 | 36:663. | Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 824, §3, 70 Stat. 795. |

Section

Before clause (1), the word "objects" is omitted as unnecessary.

In clause (5), the word "considers" is substituted for "shall deem" for consistency in the revised title.
#### Richard G. Rusiniak, Respondent, v Regina A. Lelonek, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 544]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme *1284Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered on October 20, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
PAYING WITH PLASTIC IN RUSSIA

----
|                                                                                                                                                             |  | RUSSIAN CURRENCY REFORM                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|**BISNISHome PageSearchBISNISEmbassyReportsCountryReportsIndustryReportsPublicationsSourcesof FinanceLeadsand EventsExchangeRatesState ExportsOtherSources** |  | December 1997/January 1998Effective January 1, 1998, Russia will redenominate its ruble by issuing new ruble notes and re-introducting kopek coins. The new notes will drop three zeros off the current bills in circulation:
for example, the new one ruble note will equal one 1,000 ruble bill in circulation today. One
kopek will be worth 1/100th of a ruble.  Both old and new bills will be accepted throughout 1998. 
Circulation of old bills is to be eliminated by the end of 1998, but Russian banks will exchange old
notes for new ones until the year 2002.This report is provided courtesy of the Business Information Service for the Newly
Independent States (BISNIS)
#### Albert A. Ayuso, Respondent, v. Lane Foods, Inc., Appellant.

The motion for leave to amend was made almost three years after the commencement of the action, and after the action had been tried, a verdict for the plaintiff had been returned, on trial, and an appeal had been taken to this court, which resulted in the affirmance of an order setting aside the verdict in plaintiff’s favor. Whether the defense of the Statute of Limitations may be sustained will depend on proof as to whether a previous action by the plaintiff for the same relief was, or was not, dismissed with plaintiff’s consent. Evidence as to what actually transpired at the time of such dismissal would, in all probability, have been readily available when the present action was commenced. Almost three years have now passed, and in the prosecution of the present action and the appeal which followed the setting aside of the jury’s verdict, plaintiff has been put to considerable expense, which could have been avoided if the facts, which defendant knew, or should have known, had been promptly pleaded as a defense when defendant’s answer was interposed in 1948. Under the circumstances disclosed, we see no improvident exercise of discretion, at Special Term, in the denial of defendant’s motion for leave to amend. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
rJUL 2 3 200!

B.C.D. 01-64

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad, LLC

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning

the status of Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad, LLC (WNYP),

as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et

seq.) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et

sea-)-

Information regarding WNYP was provided by Linda M. Fox, Controller,

Livonia Avon & Lakeville Corporation, a covered employer under the

Acts (B.A. No. 2115) and owner of WNYP. According to Ms. Fox, WNYP

first compensated employees April 2, 2001, and began operations April

23, 2001. William D. Burt is the chief executive officer of WNYP. WNYP

reports that it currently has 10 employees.

In Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 34017, WNYP filed

a notice of exemption to sublease from Norfolk Southern Railway

Company approximately 145 miles of rail line. It interchanges with

Norfolk Southern and Canadian Pacific.

Section 1(a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1)), 

insofar as relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of

the Surface Transportation Board under Part A of subtitle IV

of title 49, United States Code.

Sections 1(a) and 1(b) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45

U.S.C. §§ 351(a) and (b)) contain substantially the same definition, as

does section 3231 of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. § 3231).

The evidence of record establishes that WNYP is a carrier operating in

interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that WNYP is an

employer within the meaning of section l(a)(l)(i) of the Railroad

>

BA# 2280
Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad, LLC

Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(l)(i)) and the corresponding provision

of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act as of April 2, 2001, the

date as of which it first compensated employees. Cf Rev. Rul. 82-100, 

1982-1 C.B. 155.

CherryFT. Thomas

V. M. Speakman, Jr.

uerome F. Kever

>
#### § 9801.204 Special procedures: Medical records.

In the event CIGIE receives a request pursuant to § 9801.201 for access to medical records (including psychological records) whose disclosure CIGIE determines would be harmful to the individual to whom they relate, it may refuse to disclose the records directly to the requester but shall transmit them to a physician designated by the requester.
**Exhibit 15.4**

[Letterhead of King & Wood] 

June 26, 2008 

NetEase.com, Inc. 

26/F, SP Tower D 

Tsinghua Science Park Building 8 

No. 1 Zhongguancun East Road

Haidian District, Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of China 

Dear Sirs, 

Re: Consent of People’s Republic of China Counsel 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Enforcement of Civil Liabilities” in the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 of NetEase.com, Inc. to be filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission in the month of June 2008. 

Very truly yours, 

*/s/ King & Wood*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7617

KEVIN T. HARDY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRYAN P. STIRLING , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv - 00306

- JMC )

Submitted : January 19, 2021 Decided: January 21, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kevin T. Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin T. Hardy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hardy that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that re commendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although Hardy received proper notice and timely object ed to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review of his racial

- profiling

- based claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel

— the only claim raised on appeal

— beca use the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge on that claim

. ∗ See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object t o the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

∗ By failing to raise the remaining grounds in his informal brief, Hardy has forfeited appellate review of those issues. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).3 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dism iss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
**ANNUAL BENCHMARK REPORT FOR WHOLESALE TRADEBW-YR.-RV**

Available from the Customer Services Center as a  printon demand.  Place your order by telephone (credit card or censusdeposit account payment only) call Customer Services, Bureau of the Census (Phone:301-763-INFO(4636); FAX: 888-249-7295 (toll-free) or 301-457-3842).If paying by check, send acheck payable to Commerce-Census to U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of  the Census(MS0801), P.O. Box 277943, Atlanta, GA 30384-7943.
***Subject content:*   Presentsrevised seasonally adjusted and unadjusted estimatesof monthly merchant wholesalers' sales, inventories on a non-LIFO("last in-first out") basis, and stock-sale ratios, by kind-of-business groups.  Also provides unadjusted annual sales as wellas annual purchases, gross margin and gross margin to sales ratios. The report is limited to merchant wholesalers; it excludes othertypes of wholesale trade, such as manufacturers sales branches andsales offices, agents, brokers and commission merchants.  Dataprovided for the U.S. level and shows 3-digit kind of businessdata.
***Census contact:***Services Division, 301-457-2779
***Note:***  Former title:19uu-1995, Combined Annual And Revised Monthly Wholesale Trade:  SalesAnd Inventories
BW99-A  January, 1990-February 2000 37 pp.  $25  CSC  Document
BW 98-A  January 1989-May 1999  37 pp.  $25  CSC Document 
BW-97-RV  January 1988-February 1998  37 pp.  $25  CSC Document 
BW-96-RV  January 1987-February 1997  37 pp  $25 CSCView  document 
BW-95-RV  January 1986-January 1996  36 pp  $25  CSC  Documentlast update: *Friday, 27-Jul-2001 12:57:25 EDT***
Editorial Note on Part 400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 400 appear at 78 FR 69289, Nov. 19, 2013.

§ 400.52 Notices and hearings. ( a ) *In general.* The Executive Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment on applications and notifications for Board action (see, §§ 400.32 and 400.37(b)), and with regard to other reviews or matters considered under this part when public comment is necessary. An applicant under §§ 400.21, 400.24(b) and 400.25 shall give appropriate notice of its proposal in a local, general-circulation newspaper at least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period for the proposal in question. The Board, the Secretary of Commerce, the Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, or the Executive Secretary, as appropriate, may schedule and/or hold hearings during any proceedings or reviews conducted under this part whenever necessary or appropriate.
( b ) *Requests for hearings.* ( 1 ) A party who may be materially affected by the zone activity in question and who shows good cause may request a hearing during a proceeding or review.
( 2 ) The request must be made within 30 days of the beginning of the initial period for public comment (*see* § 400.32) and must be accompanied by information establishing the need for the hearing and the basis for the requesting party's interest in the matter.
( 3 ) A determination as to the need for the hearing shall be made by the Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 15 days after the receipt of such a request.
( c ) *Procedure for public hearings.* The Board shall publish notice in the Federal Register of the date, time and location of a public hearing. All participants shall have the opportunity to make a presentation. Applicants and their witnesses shall ordinarily appear first. The presiding officer may adopt time limits for individual presentations.
[77 FR 12139, Feb. 28, 2012, as amended at 89 FR 8530, Feb. 8, 2024]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Indian Health Service

# AGENCY:

Indian Health Service.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the Indian Health Service (IHS) Senior Executive Service (SES) Executive Review Board/SES Performance Review Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phyllis Eddy, Acting Director, Office of Management Services, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852, (301) 443-6290.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive.

The following have been designated as regular members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) Executive Review Board/SES Performance Review Board for IHS: Phyllis Eddy, Chair; Elaine Perry, Deputy Director, Office of the Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Robert G. McSwain, Acting Deputy Director, Management Operations; Gary Hartz, Acting Deputy Director, IHS; Chris Mandregan, Jr., Director, Alaska Area IHS; Doni Wilder, Director, Portland Area IHS; John Hubbard, Director, Navajo Area IHS.

Dated: November 5, 2004.

Charles W. Grim, 

Assistant Surgeon General, Director.

[FR Doc. 04-25244  Filed 11-12-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-16-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 23, 2016

NO. 03-15-00505-CV

David Rogers, Appellant

v.

Gregorio “Greg” Casar, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the amended final judgment signed by the trial court on July 23, 2015, 

which incorporated the terms of its orders granting summary judgment and sanctions, and the 

order on request for amended and additional findings of fact and conclusions of law signed by 

the trial court on August 12, 2015. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the 

Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s amended final judgment or the 

order on request for amended and additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, 

the Court affirms the trial court’s amended final judgment and the order on request for amended 

and additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant shall pay all costs relating 

to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Turkmenistan'sCommodity and Raw Materials Exchange

----
No. II-10-043 June 4, 2010 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

 

NRC BANS FORMER WORKER AND ISSUES ORDER TO DUKE ENERGY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has banned a former contract employee at Duke 

Energy’s McGuire Nuclear Station and issued a Confirmatory Order to the company, which has 

agreed to a series of corrective actions. 

The settlement was reached under the NRC’s Alternative Dispute Resolution process, 

which was initiated at Duke Energy’s request to address an incident which occurred at the 

McGuire plant north of Charlotte in October 2008. An NRC investigation determined that a 

contract employee brought an illegal substance into the plant’s protected area and allegedly used 

it while on the site. The NRC’s Jan. 27 letter informed Duke Energy the case warranted two 

apparent violations of federal regulations. 

The apparent violations involved a welder who brought marijuana into the protected area. 

A second contract employee became aware of the drug’s presence and its use but failed to report 

it to plant officials. 

The employee found to have used the marijuana has been banned from NRC-licensed 

activities for five years. The contract employee who failed to report the drug use is no longer 

employed at the site. 

A mediation session was held with Duke Energy on March 29 and an agreement was 

reached. A Confirmatory Order outlines a number of corrective actions and enhancements Duke 

agreed to take to preclude recurrence of such an issue. The utility also agreed to enhanced 

training and communications for all employees, including contract workers. 

The NRC requires nuclear power plant licensees to have fitness-for-duty programs to 

provide reasonable assurance that personnel are trustworthy, will perform their tasks in a 

reasonable manner, and are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, that may 

impair their ability to perform their duties. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200 

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
Copies of the enforcement action will be posted on the NRC web site at 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions . 

###