alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Yong Qing Ma,
the Chief Financial Officer of SINO GREEN LAND CORPORATION (the Company), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this statement this 13thday of November,
2009.

| | /s/ Yong Qing Ma             
| | -----------------------------
| | Yong Qing Ma                 
| | Chief Financial Officer      
| | (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Sino Green Land Corporation and will be retained by
Sino Green Land Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4042

TRACY CALVIN DUNLAP, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-02-165)

Submitted: October 22, 2003

Decided: November 13, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Tracy Calvin Dunlap, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Tracy Calvin Dunlap, Jr., was convicted of numerous fraud and

related charges and sentenced to 324 months of imprisonment as a

result of his participation in a scheme to defraud investors. Dunlap is

proceeding pro se and raises four issues on appeal. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm. 

First, Dunlap has failed to show that his indictment was constructively amended in violation of the Fifth Amendment. United States v.

Floresca, 38 F.3d 706, 710 (4th Cir. 1994). To the extent that Dunlap

now objects to evidence of the "Tonda Mesa" account being admitted

at trial, we do not find that the district court plainly erred in allowing

its admission. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507

U.S. 725, 733-37 (1993). 

Second, Dunlap alleges certain anomalies regarding the grand jury

proceedings. Our review of the record does not disclose any prejudice

to Dunlap. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256-

57 (1988). Neither does our review show constitutional error or prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 486 (4th

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this claim fails. 

Next, we do not find that the district court clearly abused its discretion by denying Dunlap’s motion for a bill of particulars. United

States v. Jackson, 757 F.2d 1486, 1491 (4th Cir. 1985). Finally, we

find that Dunlap failed to establish grounds for the district judge to

recuse himself from conducting the trial. Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d

304, 308 (4th Cir. 1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion

by denying Dunlap’s motion to recuse. United States v. DeTemple,

162 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, we affirm Dunlap’s convictions and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. DUNLAP
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------




CONSENT OF ODENBERG ULLAKKO MURANISHI & COMPANY, LLP
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ZAP of our report
dated March 26, 2004, relating to the financial statements of ZAP and
Subsidiaries, which appear in such Annual Report. We also consent to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Annual Report.



/s/ ODENBERG, ULLAKKO,  MURANISHI & CO. LLP
-------------------------------------------

Odenberg, Ullakko, Muranishi & Co. LLP
San Francisco, CA
March 26, 2004
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)

SC&A Review of the 

NIOSH Site Profile Review 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0051, rev. 01, August 2007)

Joseph Fitzgerald

SC&A

February 2012

Oakland, CA
BACKGROUND

• Site profile of SLAC issued by NIOSH on Aug 17, 2007 

• SC&A tasked by Advisory Board to review site profile; 

conducted May 2010-Aug 2011, and included onsite data 

capture and site expert interviews.

• SC&A draft report issued on Dec 20, 2011; contained 

 4 primary findings and 6 secondary findings.
PRIMARY FINDINGS

1. Incomplete basis for external neutron dose adjustments

2. Lack of extremity monitoring and low-energy photon 

calibration

3. Assessment of internal dose from enhanced radon and 

thoron in the tunnels

4. Incomplete characterization of internal radiological hazards 
SECONDARY FINDINGS

• Incomplete characterization of internal exposure potential 

from routine operations

• Incomplete claimant medical records for historical workers

• Incomplete basis for environmental external dose from 

neutron skyshine

• Back extrapolation of occupational environmental photon 

doses

• Unsupported assumptions for calculation of environmental 

internal dose from onsite airborne releases

• Lack of adequate and accurate dose records prior to 1974
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5970 

AN ACT 

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to carry 

out a cost benefit analysis of the use of Form 10-Q 

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, 
2 

•HR 5970 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Modernizing Disclo3 sures for Investors Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FORM 10–Q ANALYSIS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Securities and Exchange 

6 Commission shall conduct an analysis of the costs and 

7 benefits of requiring reporting companies to use Form 10– 

8 Q for submitting quarterly financial reports. Such analysis 

9 shall consider— 

10 (1) the costs and benefits of Form 10–Q to 

11 emerging growth companies; 

12 (2) the costs and benefits of Form 10–Q to the 

13 Commission in terms of its ability to protect inves14 tors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, 

15 and facilitate capital formation; 

16 (3) the costs and benefits of Form 10–Q to 

17 other reporting companies, investors, market re18 searchers, and other market participants, including 

19 the costs and benefits associated with— 

20 (A) the public availability of the informa21 tion required to be filed on Form 10–Q; 

22 (B) the use of a standardized reporting 

23 format across all classes of reporting compa24 nies; and 

25 (C) the quarterly disclosure by some com26 panies of financial information in formats other 
3 

•HR 5970 EH

1 than Form 10–Q, such as a quarterly earnings 

2 press release; 

3 (4) the costs and benefits of alternative formats 

4 for quarterly reporting for emerging growth compa5 nies to emerging growth companies, the Commission, 

6 other reporting companies, investors, market re7 searchers, and other market participants; and 

8 (5) the expected impact of the use of alternative 

9 formats of quarterly reporting by emerging growth 

10 companies on overall market transparency and effi11 ciency. 

12 (b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days 

13 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission 

14 shall issue a report to Congress that includes— 

15 (1) the results of the analysis required by sub16 section (a); and 

17 (2) recommendations for decreasing costs, in18 creasing transparency, and increasing efficiency of 

19 quarterly financial reporting by emerging growth 

20 companies. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5970 

AN ACT 

To require the Securities and Exchange Commisuse of Form 10-Q and for other purposes. sion to carry out a cost benefit analysis of the
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-0165; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-11]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

 Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) special Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) that serve the Montrose High School Heliport, Montrose, PA.

# DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, February 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-5581; fax (404) 305-5572.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Confirmation of Effective Date

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 13, 2007 (72 FR 70768). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such                           ( print page 11003)                        an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on February 14, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.                

Issued in College Park, GA, on February 7, 2008.

John D. Haley,

Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.

[FR Doc. 08-876 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of
Nuveen Income Fund:
In planning and performing our audit of the
financial statements of NUVEEN INCOME FUND
(one of the portfolios constituting the Nuveen
Investment Trust III (a Massachusetts business
trust)) for the year ended September 30, 2000, we
considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose
of expressing our opinion on the financial
statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, and not to provide assurance on
internal control.
The management of Nuveen Income Fund is
responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
 estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related
costs of controls. Generally, controls that are
relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's objective
of preparing financial statements for external
purposes that are fairly presented in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets
against unauthorized acquisition, use or
disposition.
Because of inherent limitations in internal control,
errors or fraud may occur and not be detected.
Also, projection of any evaluation of internal
control to future periods is subject to the risk that it
may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design
and operation may deteriorate.
Our consideration of internal control would not
necessarily disclose all matters in internal control
that might be material weaknesses under standards
established by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one
or more of the internal control components does
not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts
that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in
the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters
involving internal control and its operation,
 including controls for safeguarding securities, that
we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above as of September 30, 2000.
This report is intended solely for the information
and use of management and the Board of Trustees
of Nuveen Income Fund and the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Chicago, Illinois
November 20, 2000
Exhibit 31.2
 
      (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)
    
    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 registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 23, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Martin SchneiderMartin SchneiderVice President and Principal Financial Officer E-3
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                   Subsidiaries of iGate Capital Corporation

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                              Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Formation
-------------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
Air2Web, Inc.                                                             GA
Chen & McGinley, Inc.                                                     CA
Direct Resources Scotland, Ltd.                                        Scotland
eJIVA, Inc.                                                               PA
Emplifi, Inc.                                                             PA
Planning Technologies, Inc.                                               GA
Ex-Tra-Net Applications, Inc.                                             PA
Global Financial Services of Nevada                                       NV
Goldstar Computer Systems Inc.                                      Ontario, Canada
iGate Capital Management, Inc.                                            PA
iGate Europe, Inc.                                                        PA
iGate Holding Corporation                                                 DE
iGate Management, Inc.                                                    PA
iGate Venture Management LLC                                              PA
iGate Ventures Holding Corporation                                        DE
iGate Ventures, Inc.                                                      DE
Innovative Resource Group                                                 PA
Mascot Systems Private Limited                                           India
Mastech Application Services, Inc.                                        PA
Mastech Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd.                                         Australia
Mastech Asia Pacific (NT) Pty. Ltd.                                    Australia
Mastech Canada, Inc.                                                    Canada
Mastech MMBH                                                           Malaysia
Mastech Quantum Information Resources Ltd.                          Quebec, Canada
Mastech Systems (Germany) GmbH                                          Germany
Mastech Systems Corporation                                               PA
Mastech Trademark Corporation                                             DE
Mastech Trademark Systems, Inc.                                           DE
MC Computer Services Pty. Ltd.                                         Australia
Quantum Group (U.S.), Inc.                                                DE
Quantum Information Resources, Inc.                                       NY
Scott Systems Private Limited                                            India
Silverside Computer Systems, Inc.                                       Canada
</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 6, 2016

NO. 03

- 14

- 00327

- CR

Johan Dilson De Souza, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE , JUSTICES GOODWIN A ND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

t he record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN IRELAND, M.D., an individual, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BEND NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-35337 

D.C. No. 6:16-cv-02054-MK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted April 5, 2023***

Before: WALLACE, D. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Ireland appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 5 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-35337 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross-motions 

for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cnty. San Diego, 670 F.3d 

957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on 

Ireland’s “rule of reason” Sherman Act claim because Ireland failed to raise a 

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants either intended to harm

or unreasonably restrain competition or as to whether defendants actually caused 

an injury to competition. See Austin v. McNamara, 979 F.2d 728, 738–39 (9th Cir. 

1992) (setting forth elements of a “rule of reason” Sherman Act § 1 claim). 

The district court also properly granted summary judgment for defendants 

on Ireland’s intentional interference with economic relations claim because Ireland 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants 

intentionally interfered with a professional or business relationship through 

improper means or for an improper purpose. See Kraemer v. Harding, 976 P.2d 

1160, 1170 (Or. App. 1999) (establishing elements of an intentional interference 

with economic relations claim).

AFFIRMED.