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 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



In connection
with the Annual Report of AJ Greentech Holdings, Ltd. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Yulin Yang,
as Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable 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 Registrant.

|Dated:  July 10, 2014 | By: /s/ Chu Li An             
|--------------------- | ------------------------------
|                      | Name: Chu  Li An              
|                      | Title: Chief Financial Officer
|                      | (Principal Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to AJ Greentech Holdings, Ltd. and will be retained by AJ Greentech Holdings, Ltd. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff .
#### John T. BELL; Bell, Rose & Cordier, P.A., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Alfred Luis REHDER, Defendant—Appellant, and Steven Harold Greenfeld, Trustee.

No. 08-1500.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2009.

Decided: April 15, 2009.

Jeffrey M. Orenstein, Goren, Wolff & Orenstein, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Philip J. McNutt, Hughes & Bentzen, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Ap-pellees.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Luis Rehder appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that the restitution debt he owed to the State of Maryland was non-dischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and determin*292ing that the restitution judgment entered as part of Maryland’s criminal sentencing process was also non-dischargeable. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bell v. Rehder,*No. 8:07-cv01231-MJG (D. Md. filed Mar. 25, 2008; entered Mar. 26, 2008). 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.*
#### Stacy Allen TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2014-5110.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2014.

Stacy Allen Taylor, Leitchfield, KY, pro se.

Phyllis Jo Baunach, Esq., Senior Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stacy Allen Taylor, an incarcerated pro se litigant, challenges the dismissal of his complaint as. frivolous under 19 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)® by the United States Court of Federal Claims. Because we agree that the complaint was frivolous, we grant the government’s motion to summarily affirm.

Taylor’s complaint alleges that he entered into an agreement with the Central Intelligence Agency to assist its agents in collecting various information and assets in *891exchange for witness protection and full immunity. His complaint requests that the court direct the government to turn over evidence showing corruption and wrongdoing by the CIA and honor the agreement’s obligations to pay Taylor a recurring monthly salary. After granting Taylor leave to proceed *informa pauperis,*the United States Court of Federal Claims screened the suit and dismissed the complaint.

A district court is required to dismiss a frivolous complaint from a litigant who is proceeding *in forma pauperis.*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Frivolous complaints include those in which the factual allegations asserted are so unbelievable that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing to determine their veracity. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 819, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (frivolous claims include those that describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios”); *Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility,*302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir.2002); *cf. Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United States,*834 F.2d 998, 1000 (Fed.Cir.1987) (A frivolous claim is one “whose disposition is obvious.”).

That description fits this case. Taylor’s complaint alleges a tale of international intrigue involving the Irish Republican Army, the CIA’s sale of decommissioned Russian nuclear warheads to Iran and North Korea, and CIA agents exchanging long-range missiles for American and French prisoners. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that Taylor’s complaint was frivolous, we grant the motion to summarily affirm. *See Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994) (Summary affirmance “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4925]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 13030]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-116050-99]
RIN 1545-AX65


Stock Transfer Rules: Carryover of Earnings and Taxes; Hearing 
Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations relating to stock transfer rules and 
carryover of earnings and taxes.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, March 13, 
2001, at 10 a.m., is canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy R. Traynor of the Regulations 
Unit, Office of Special Counsel, at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on November 15, 
2000, (65 FR 69138), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for 
March 13, 2001 at 10 a.m., in Room 7218 of the Internal Revenue 
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. The 
subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under section 367 
of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these 
proposed regulations expired on February 20, 2001.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of February 23, 2001, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the 
public hearing scheduled for March 13, 2001, is canceled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & 
Strategic Planning).
[FR Doc. 01-4925 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### **EXHIBIT 32.01**

### **SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

### **OF PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Gerald Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer, and I,Helen D. McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer, of R.J. O’Brien Fund Management,LLC. (“RJOFM”), the Managing Owner of JWH Global Trust (the “Trust”), certifythat (i) the attached Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the attached Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| Gerald Corcoran                                          |   | Helen D. McCarthy                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Gerald Corcoran                                          |   | Helen D. McCarthy                                        |
| Chief Executive Officer                                  |   | Chief Financial Officer                                  |
| R. J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLC., Managing Owner |   | R. J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLC., Managing Owner |
| August 14, 2007                                          |   | August 14, 2007                                          |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Martin Concepcion, Appellant.

[25 NYS3d 212]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. *579Merchan, J.), rendered November 21, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]). Moreover, the evidence was overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s dominion and control over the contraband found in an apartment during the execution of a search warrant was established by, among other things, evidence that he admitted residing in the apartment, and that the clothes he put on during the arrest came from the same drawer where the contraband was found. The absence of documentary evidence of defendant’s residency in the apartment may be readily explained by, for example, the possibility that the nominal tenants may have been violating New York City Housing Authority regulations regarding residency.

Defendant did not preserve his arguments that the admission at trial of a search warrant’s description of the targeted suspect constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. When the People offered this evidence to complete the narrative and explain police actions, defendant tacitly conceded that theory of admissibility, but objected on completely different grounds not pursued on appeal. Thus, the court did not “expressly decide [ ]” the same issue raised on appeal “in response to a protest by a party” (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; *People v Colon,*46 AD3d 260, 263 [1st Dept 2007]). In any event, any error regarding this evidence was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Defendant’s claim that the court should have given a limiting instruction is also unpreserved, and likewise does not warrant reversal.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of these claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal *580standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-55512]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81


Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 81 to 85, 
revised as of July 1, 2000, in Sec. 81.306, beginning on page 98 in the 
first column, remove the text from the table beginning with ``Archuleta 
County'' through the end of the table on page 100 up to the next 
heading ''Colorado -PM-10''.
[FR Doc. 01-55512 Filed 4-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T FRA N CES H I N ES, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. T O Y O T A M O T O R S A L E S , U .S .A ., I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 55919 D . C. N o . 8 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 4 1 6 - J V SF MO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s V . S e l na , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anua ry15, 2013 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , B E A , an dN G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F r a nc e s H i ne s appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng h e rd iv e r s itya c tio n a lle g in g p e r s o n a l in ju r ie s s u s ta in e din am o to rv e h ic le a c c id e n t. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of 

# FI LED

JAN 17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 55919 2 d is c r e tio n ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to c o m p lyw ith lo c a l ru le s , G h a z a li v . Moran , 4 6 F. 3 d5 2 , 5 3 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bydi s m i s s i ng the a c t i on because H i nes f

ai l ed t o o pp ose def

endant s’ F eder alR ul es of C i vi l P roce du re 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o tio n to d is m is s . See C . D . C a l . C i v. R . 7- 12 ( “ T he f a i l ur e t o f

i l e a ny re qu i re d d ocum ent , or the fa i l ure t o fi l e w i thi n the deadl i ne, m aybe deem ed c o n s e n t to th e g r a n tin g o rd e n ia l o f th e m o tio n .” ) ; see a l

so Jacobsen v. Fi l ler , 790 F . 2d 13 62 , 13 64 -65 (9th C i r. 19 86 ) ( pro se l i t i gant s i n the ordi naryci vi l ca se ar e no texcuse d from com pl i ance w i th p roce du ra l rul es ). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Michael J. McKelvey, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of eResearchTechnology, 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
1

 
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date:  November 5, 2007 /s/ Michael J. McKelvey   Michael J. McKelvey,   President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer  
2
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Spectra Energy Partners, LP;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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)) for the registrant 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 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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    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: March 25, 2008
    /s/ C. Gregory HarperC. Gregory HarperPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLCGeneral Partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LPGeneral Partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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


     Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas,
Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

     1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter 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; and

     2) the information contained in the Company's Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: April 30, 2003

                                        /s/ Paul B. Murphy, Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------

                                        Paul B. Murphy, Jr.
                                        Director, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer