alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Frank Zhao, Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of Sun New Media, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sun New Media, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e)and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report was being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   /s/ Frank Zhao Frank Zhao, Chief Financial Officer  Date: August 9, 2006
EXHIBIT 16.1


[Moss Adams LLP Letterhead]


November 12, 2002

Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have read the disclosure contained in Part II, Item 5 of the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Network  Commerce Inc. for the quarterly  period ended September
30, 2002. We are in agreement with the  statements  contained  therein,  as they
pertain to our firm.  Moss Adams LLP did not  complete  the SAS 71 review of the
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002.

                                                     Very truly yours,

                                                     /s/ Moss Adams LLP
H. R. 3237 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To amend the SOAR Act by clarifying the scope of coverage of the Act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SOAR Technical Corrections 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. USE OF FUNDS. 

Section 3007(a)(4)(F) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and 

Results Act (Public Law 112–10; 125 Stat. 203) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘(F) ensures that, with respect to core academic subjects (as such term is defined in section 9101(11) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 7801(11)), participating students are taught by a 

teacher who has a baccalaureate degree or equivalent 

degree, whether such degree was awarded in or outside 

of the United States.’’. 

SEC. 3. NATIONALLY NORM-REFERENCED STANDARDIZED TESTS. 

Section 3008(h) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 

Act (Public Law 112–10; 125 Stat. 205) is amended by striking 

paragraph (2) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) ADMINISTRATION OF TESTS.—The Institute of Education 

Sciences shall administer nationally norm-referenced standardized tests, as described in paragraph (3)(A) of section 3009(a), 

to students participating in the evaluation under section 

3009(a) for the purpose of conducting the evaluation under 

such section, except where a student is attending a participating 

school that is administering the same nationally norm-referenced standardized test in accordance with the testing 

requirements described in paragraph (1). 

‘‘(3) TEST RESULTS.—Each participating school that administers the nationally norm-referenced standardized test 

described in paragraph (2) to an eligible student shall make 

the test results, with respect to such student, available to 

the Secretary as necessary for evaluation under section 

3009(a).’’. 

SEC. 4. EVALUATIONS. 

Section 3009(a)(3) of the Scholarships for Opportunity and 

Results Act (Public Law 112–10; 125 Stat. 206) is amended— 
H. R. 3237—2 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon 

the following: ‘‘in a manner consistent with section 3008(h)’’; 

and 

(2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘, if requested by 

the Institute of Education Sciences,’’ after ‘‘will participate’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Dean S. ISBLE, Ricky C. Willis.

Crim. Nos. 3-78-14, 3-78-25.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, N. D.

Feb. 15, 1979.

*153John H. Cary, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Ken D. McCasland, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

The Government has moved the Court to reconsider its judgment and commitment order issued in CR. 3-78-14 on April 4, 1978, and its judgment and commitment order issued in CR. 3-78-25 on April 19, 1978.

These two cases were plea bargained. Before sentencing in CR. 3-78-14, the Court was careful to explain to the accused their rights and to ask them if they were guilty and they replied in the affirmative, and to ask them if they entered their pleas freely and voluntarily and without coercion, to which they responded in the affirmative. In CR. 3-78-25 the accused were arraigned two weeks later. Of course, their rights had previously been explained to them and they were questioned in some detail. They were asked at the second hearing whether they understood the charge and if they were entering their pleas of guilty freely, voluntarily, understanding^ and without coercion. They answered in the affirmative and stated that they were guilty. The Court was satisfied then and is satisfied now that they were guilty and that there was a factual basis for the plea in both cases.

There are many different procedures that may be utilized to satisfy the requirement that the Court satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea of guilty. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f). The indictment, if sufficiently specific, may be used to establish such a factual basis. See *Kloner v. United States,*535 F.2d 730 (2nd Cir. 1976), *cert. denied*429 U.S. 942, 97 S.Ct. 361, 50 L.Ed.2d 312; *Sassoon v. United States,*561 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1977); *Jimenez v. United States,*487 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1973), *cert. denied*416 U.S. 916, 94 S.Ct. 1623, 40 L.Ed.2d 118 (1974). Such a procedure was used here and Rule 11 was not thereby violated.

The purpose of Rule 11(f) is to ensure that a defendant does not mistakenly plead guilty though his actual conduct does not constitute all the elements of the crime charged. See *McCarthy*v. *United States*394 U.S. 459, 467, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). In these cases, defendants were represented by competent counsel and were charged with identical bank robberies. In 3-78-14 the record shows quite clearly that the defendants committed bank robbery. In this case Rule 11 was obviously satisfied. In 3-78-25, the record is not so detailed. The defendants, however, freely admitted guilt in the face of the specific charge in the indictment and under the Court’s questioning. There was no reasonable possibility that their plea of guilty could have been mistaken in light of their prior *154admissions and the prior proceedings. Under these circumstances Rule 11 was satisfied.

The Court sees no reason why counsel for the defendants should be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the government’s motion be, and the same hereby is, denied.
M. S. MOTHER OF E. C., T. S., 

V. S., S. S., J.S.,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-662

CORRECTED PAGES: pg 1

CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN RED

MAILED: July 6, 2015

BY: NMS

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 2, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Hon. James P. Nilon, Judge.

Lara A. Mason, Ponte Vedra Beach, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Jacksonville, and Kelley Schaeffer, Sanford, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated December 11, 2014, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-199645) of Smart Trust,
Enhanced Value II Trust, Series 11.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois


December 11, 2014
Exhibit 32.2



Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Ladies and Gentleman:



In connection with the annual report of Featherlite, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-k for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jeffery A. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|               |  | 
|April 14, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Jeffery A. Mason   
|               |  |  |  |                        
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### ALLSTAR TIRE & WHEEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHEEL PROS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2011-1015.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 12, 2011.

David V. Jafari, Jafari Law Group, Inc. of Santa Ana, CA, argued for the plaintiff-appellant.

Dennis G. Martin, Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for the defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Willmore F. Holbrow, III.

Before LINN, CLEVENGER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
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).

The Honorable Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge for the U.S. District ***

Court Central District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE PIEDAD SOLORIO,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MIKE EVANS, Warden; J. DOVEY,

Director, California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-15702

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-04641-MHP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 29, 2011** 

San Francisco, California

Before: FISHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, District

Judge.*** 

FILED

SEP 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Petitioner Jose Solorio challenges the district court’s denial of his petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Solorio contends that he

was denied due process because the trial court declined to instruct the jury that the

prosecution had the burden of disproving Solorio acted in self-defense.

Viewing the instructions as a whole, we hold that no “substantial and

injurious effect or influence on the verdict” occurred. Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d

1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Indeed, the trial court repeatedly

reiterated the prosecution’s burden to prove Solorio’s guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. Thus, the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Solorio’s due process

claim was not “contrary to,” nor did it “involve[] an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), see also Pulido, 629

F.3d at 1012 (explaining that habeas relief is not appropriate unless the asserted

instructional error has “a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict

. . .”). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000860745  
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP III-A
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                522,371
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         524,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    1,047,220
<PP&E>                             15,907,665
<DEPRECIATION>                     13,237,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      3,916,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  78,040
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                          3,786,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        3,916,891
<SALES>                             3,328,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    3,504,849
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       3,372,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       131,985
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   131,985
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          131,985
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
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 of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry M. Copeland, President and CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/  Terry M. CopelandTerry M. Copeland, President and CEO

November 5, 2010
**Exhibit 99.2**

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

I, Nicholas M. Rosier, ChiefFinancial Officer of Prolong International Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2003(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and

(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

| Dated:  May 12, 2003 |   |   |                                                                             |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   |   | /s/ NICHOLAS M. ROSIER                                                           |
|                           |   |   |                                                                                  |
|                           |   |   | **Nicholas M. Rosier, Chief Financial Officer****(Principal Financial Officer)** |
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Skuli Thorvaldsson, certify that:

In  connection   with  the  Annual  Report  of  Digital   Creative   Development
Corporation.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,2004
(the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company,  certifies,  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 his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) 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: : March 7 , 2006

/ s / Skuli Thorvaldsson
------------------------------------
Skuli Thorvaldsson
Chief Financial Officer
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 13, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

S. MOLI NGATUVAI,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-4025

v. D. Utah

TODD BRECKENRIDGE, Provo City

Officer; ROBERT TROMBLY,

Prosecutor; JUDGE FNU ROMNEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00803-DS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

After examining the parties’ briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

S. Moli Ngatuvai appeals from the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The district court

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.
concluded even a liberal reading of Ngatuvai’s complaint, which challenged the

appropriateness of a traffic citation Ngatuvai received in 2009, revealed no facts

demonstrating a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district

court further concluded that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because

Ngatuvai had been afforded ample opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his civil

rights complaint.

This court reviews a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, applying

the same standard as the district court. Teigen v. Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072, 1078

(10th Cir. 2007). Upon de novo review, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the district court’s order of dismissal. In so

doing, this court sees no need to repeat the cogent analysis set out in the district

court’s order dated January 12, 2011. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is hereby AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-2-