alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Peter Mak, certify that:
  1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of New Dragon Asia Corp.:
  2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
  3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
  4
The registrant's other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have
  (a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared
  (b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  (c)
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
  (a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
  (b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
  6.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  
 
 ****Date: November 9, 2004
By:
/s/ Peter MakPeter MakChief Financial Officer
  
 -18-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7177.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 7, 2010.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for certificate of appealability in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) proceedings. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). *735When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52964-52965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24694]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10197]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``Outliers and American Vanguard Art'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Outliers and American Vanguard Art,'' imported

[[Page 52965]]

from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National 
Gallery of Art, Washington, District of Columbia, from on or about 
January 28, 2018, until on or about May 13, 2018, at the High Museum of 
Art, Atlanta, Georgia, from on or about June 24, 2018, until on or 
about September 30, 2018, at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los 
Angeles, California, from on or about November 18, 2018, until on or 
about March 18, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal 
Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6112040215080e0f535554582112150015044f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b382e283f222425797f7e720b383f2a3f2e652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of 
December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

Alyson Grunder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-24694 Filed 11-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the previously announced meeting of the Board of Directors scheduled to be held on Monday, December 10, 2001, at 2 p.m. (open session) has been                     *rescheduled*                     for 10 a.m. that same day.                

No earlier notice of the change in time of this meeting was practicable.

Dated: December 7, 2001.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James D. LaPierre,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-30925  Filed 12-11-01; 2:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JULIE A. MADARANG,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3199

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0831-14-0267-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Julie A. Madarang moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

Case: 14-3199 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 09/24/2014
2 MADARANG v. MSPB

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-3199 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 09/24/2014
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly Ann JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-4313.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 25, 2013.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUES AIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kimberly Ann Jones pled guilty to two counts of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. The district court sentenced her to 32 months’ imprisonment. Jones’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the propriety of the guilty plea and the reasonableness of the sentence. Although advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Jones has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In the absence of a motion in the district court to withdraw a guilty plea, this court’s review of the plea colloquy is for plain error. *United States v. Martinez,*277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002). After reviewing the plea agreement and the transcript of the plea hearing, we conclude that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, and that Jones’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.

We have reviewed Jones’s sentence and conclude that the sentence imposed was reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Llamas,*599 F.3d *200381, 387 (4th Cir.2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Jones, appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors in light of Jones’s individual characteristics and history. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 41, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Allen,*491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jones requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jones. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
{"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":"Proof of NVOCC Financial Responsibility for Trade with the People\u2019s Republic of China \u2013 Revised Optional Bond Rider Forms","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rFytn5yE1Q\"><a href=\"\/revised_optionalbond_forms\/\">Proof of NVOCC Financial Responsibility for Trade with the People\u2019s Republic of China \u2013 Revised Optional Bond Rider Forms<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/revised_optionalbond_forms\/embed\/#?secret=rFytn5yE1Q\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Proof of NVOCC Financial Responsibility for Trade with the People\u2019s Republic of China \u2013 Revised Optional Bond Rider Forms” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"rFytn5yE1Q\" 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"}
#### Angela Dawn DOWLING, Plaintiff v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., Third Party Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30218

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 19, 2008.

Kenneth H. Laborde, Leo R. McAloon, III, Brendan P. Doherty, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff.

Vance Arnold Gibbs, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Third-party defendant/appellant Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (“KBR”) has filed an unopposed motion for a determination regarding appellate jurisdiction prior to the issuance of a briefing schedule. We grant the motion and conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over this case.

KBR filed the instant motion out of an abundance of caution because the order appealed from does not contain a specific dollar amount. Instead, the district court, upon granting summary judgment in favor of Georgia-Pacific Corporation (“GP”), ordered KBR to (1) indemnify GP for the full amount of the settlement proceeds paid to the plaintiff on the underlying claim; and (2) reimburse GP for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this matter.

We have jurisdiction over appeals from all “final decisions” of the district courts. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A judgment is final when it terminates litigation on the merits and leaves the court with nothing to do except execute the judgment.” *Zink v. United States,*929 F.2d 1015, 1020 (5th Cir.1991). However, a judgment is not final until both liability and damages are determined. *Deloach v. Delchamps,*897 F.2d 815, 826 (5th Cir.1990). “Although there is no statute or rule that specifies the essential elements of a final judgment and the Supreme Court has held that no form of words and no peculiar formal act is necessary to evince the rendition of a judgment, a final judgment for money must, at least, determine, or specify the means for determining, the amount of the judgment.” *Zink,*929 F.2d at 1020 (internal citations omitted).

Here, the district court specifically ordered KBR to indemnify GP for the full amount of the settlement proceeds paid to the plaintiff on the underlying claim. The parties agree that the amount is readily available through court documents. With respect to the issue of attorney’s fees and costs, the Supreme Court has made clear that “a decision on the merits is a ‘final decision’ for purposes of § 1291 whether *432or not there remains for adjudication a request for attorney’s fees attributable to the case.” *Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,*486 U.S. 196, 202-03, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988).

Thus, we have appellate jurisdiction over this case.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### 1Starr DALTON, Petitioner, v. State of WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent.

No. 10-2132.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 29, 2010.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

IStarr Dalton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

IStarr Dalton filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1999 conviction for robbery. This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas petitions, and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring the petition to the district court.*
      *See*28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006); Fed. R.App. P. 22(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED.*

The district court has previously denied Dalton’s habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006), *see Dalton v. McBride,*No. 1:07-cv-00074, 2007 WL 2021877 (S.D.W.Va. July 9, 2007); *Dalton v. Ruben-stein,*No. 1:08-cv-00901, 2009 WL 564585 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 3, 2009). On appeal this court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed. *Dalton v. McBride,*251 Fed.Appx. 824 (4th Cir.2007) (unpublished); *Dalton v. Rubenstein,*340 Fed.Appx. 171 (4th Cir.2009) (unpublished).
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer  of Legacy Wine & Spirits International, Ltd. (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company  for  the  quarter ended June 30, 2010  (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934  and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.



Date: August 10, 2010

/s/Jaclyn Cruz

Jaclyn Cruz

Chief Financial Officer
{"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":"June 2022 Revocations & Surrenders","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ChWTxiMpio\"><a href=\"\/oti\/june-2022-revocations-surrenders\/\">June 2022 Revocations & Surrenders<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/june-2022-revocations-surrenders\/embed\/#?secret=ChWTxiMpio\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“June 2022 Revocations & Surrenders” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"ChWTxiMpio\" 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"}