alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, George Moore, certify that:

2. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Baxx Systems Inc. , a
Nevada corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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 annual 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
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     (c) presented in this annual 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 officers 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
functions):

     (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 officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether 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: December 10, 2007

/S/ George Moore
---------------------------
[Signature] President & CEO
#### Burney ALLEN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-81-264.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 20, 1984.

*1150Johnie O’Neal, Asst. Public Defender, Tulsa, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

On appeal from his conviction in the Tulsa County District Court for the offense of First Degree Murder, Case No. CRF-80-766, in which punishment was set at life imprisonment, the appellant, Burney Allen, Jr., asserts that the trial court denied him a fair and impartial trial.

The appellant was the owner of an unlicensed bar in Tulsa named “Neckties.” Late in the evening of March 6, 1980, the appellant and a customer, Calvin Baker, were engaged in an argument about some money which had been stolen in the club. The State’s witness, Sarah Jean Buffalo, testified that she observed the two men arguing outside the bar and that the appellant pulled a gun from his pocket and shot Baker four (4) times. Several spectators carried Baker to' a vacant lot where his body was found the next morning.

The appellant’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court failed to completely define manslaughter in the first degree in its instructions to the jury.

The appellant did not object to the manslaughter instruction at trial, nor did he include it as error in his motion for a new trial or petition-in-error. The appellant effectively waived his right to allege error on appeal. *Rhea v. State,*668 P.2d 1164, (Okl.Cr.1983).

The challenged instruction read:

> You are instructed that even though the Information filed herein by the State charges the defendant with the crime of Murder in the First Degree, such Information or charge also includes the lessor crime of Manslaughter in the First Degree, even though such lessor crime is not specifically mentioned therein.

> Under the laws and statutes of the State of Oklahoma, ‘Homicide is Manslaughter in the First Degree when perpetrated without a design to effect death, and in a heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon.’

This instruction follows almost verbatim the language of 21 O.S.1981, § 711. We are of the opinion that, even if this assignment of error had been properly preserved, the instruction was sufficient because it fairly and accurately stated the applicable law. The brevity of an instruction does not mean that it is inadequate or that it denied appellant a fair trial. *Soap v. State,*562 P.2d 889 (Okl.Cr.1977). For the above reasons we find that the assignment of error is without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                  EXHIBIT 10(F)
                                 
   AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED APPOINTED NON-EMPLOYEE
  DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN OF AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION


     THIS AMENDMENT, made by the Board of Directors of American
Freightways Corporation (the "Company") is effective as of the date
indicated below.

                       W-I-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H:

     WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the Amended and Restated
Appointed Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of American
Freightways Corporation (the "Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, Section 5 of the Plan authorizes the Board of
Directors of the Company to amend the Plan from time to time; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined
that it is in the best interests of the Plan's participants and
beneficiaries and the Company's shareholders to amend Section 3 of
the Plan to move the automatic grant date under the Plan from the
first day of February of each year to the first day of January of
each year, unless otherwise specified by the Board.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   Effective December 30, 1998, Section 3 of the Plan is
amended by deleting the first paragraph thereof and adding in its
place the following:

          3.   ELIGIBILITY.  Each person who shall
          have been appointed by the Board to fill
          an then-existing vacancy shall
          automatically be granted options to
          purchase 6,000 shares of the Company's
          common stock (subject to further
          adjustment as provided herein) as of the
          date of such appointment and on each
          succeeding first day in January (or such
          other time during the year as the Board
          may determine), beginning January 1, 2000,
          provided, that such automatic option
          grants shall be made only if the recipient
          director (i) is not otherwise an employee
          of the Company or any subsidiary on the
          date of grant, (ii) is a member of the
          Board of Directors on the date such option
          is granted.
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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, Michael H. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of
Tower Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael H. Lee

Michael H. Lee
Chief Executive Officer
November 15, 2004
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0817. KENDALL LACY v. THOMAS A. COX, JR.

Kendall Lacy, who is incarcerated in the Fulton County Jail awaiting criminal

trial, filed an original mandamus petition in this Court. Lacy seeks an order of this

Court dismissing the charges against him based upon the violation of his right to a

speedy trial. For reasons that follow, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy. 

An appellate court has limited original mandamus authority in aid of our

jurisdiction. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV. Mandamus will issue

“only if (1) no other adequate legal remedy is available to effectuate the relief sought;

and (2) the applicant has a clear legal right to such relief.” Bibb County v. Monroe

County, 294 Ga. 730, 734 (2) (755 SE2d 760) (2014). Here, although Jonesstyles his

petition as one for mandamus, the relief he seeks – dismissal of the charges against

him – is not the proper subject of a mandamus petition. Rather, Jones may seek relief

in the context of his criminal case by filing a motion to dismiss in the trial court. See,

e. g., Oduok v. Bowden, 272 Ga. 778, 778 (535 SE2d 241) (2000) (mandamus

unavailable as defendant has adequate remedy at law in pending criminal case). 

Because Lacy has not shown that the extremely rare exercise of this Court’s

original mandamus jurisdiction is warranted, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.

January 16, 2020
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/16/2020
#### John C. SNODDERLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 22, 1988.

*983James J. Egan of Law Office of James J. Egan, Gainesville, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

BARFIELD, Judge.

Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual battery on a child under the age of eleven, in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes. We find no reversible errors among the issues raised on appeal.

The trial court did not err in refusing to allow the testimony of defense witnesses as to prior inconsistent statements allegedly made by the victim as the victim had never been asked if she had made such statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. There was sufficient evidence in the victim’s testimony to establish penetration. Although excludable upon a timely objection, the testimony of the child sexual abuse expert that it was her conclusion the victim had been sexually abused by appellant did not constitute fundamental error such that it may be raised for the first time on appeal. Inexplicably no objection was made at trial. The record reflects the trial court adequately considered the factors the trial court is to consider in finding sufficient safeguards of reliability in out-of-court statements of child sexual abuse victims, under section 90.803(23). *Distefano v. State,*526 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

We do note a matter regarding the sentencing which was not raised on appeal. The conviction was under section 794.-011(2), which is a capital felony. The judgment incorrectly reflects that the crime was an “LF,” a life felony. The sentence imposed was for a term of natural life but does not include a minimum mandatory 25 years as required for a capital felony. Section 775.082(1). Due to the absence of a guidelines scoresheet in the record, it appears the sentencing was treated as a capital felony, as a life felony would require a scoresheet under section 921.001(4)(a). Sentencing errors that produce an illegal sentence and are apparent from the record can be raised on appeal without a contemporaneous objection. *Bellinger v. State,*514 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We sua sponte raise this issue as it is apparent from the record. On remand, the trial court is to amend the judgment to show that the crime was a capital felony, and not a life felony, and to correct the sentence to reflect that a 25 year minimum mandatory sentence is to be served.

The conviction is AFFIRMED and the case REMANDED to correct the sentence consistent with this opinion.

THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur,
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     The undersigned, Stephen W. Ensign, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company").

     This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Report").

     By execution of this statement, I certify that:

     A)   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(a) or
          78o(d)) and

     B)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
          Report.

     This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

 March 27, 2003                         /s/ Stephen W. Ensign
----------------------                  --------------------------
Dated                                   Stephen W. Ensign

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by
New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Harry R. SMITH and Linda L. Smith v. LUMBERMEN'S INVESTMENT CORPORATION.

No. 58139.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 9, 1989.

David M. Sessums, Varner, Parker & Sessums, Vicksburg, for appellant.

Frank D. Edens, Sr., Adams, Valentine & Edens, Brandon, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Warren County; Nat Bullard, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Vincent Charles ALLNET, Sr. v. CLERK OF COURT, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 87-KH-0149.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 28, 1987.

In re Allnet, Vincent Charles Sr.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the post-conviction petition submitted on September 16, 1986, if it has been filed.
Exhibit
32.1





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS





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 ECCO Energy Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samuel M.
Skipper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 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) 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:
April 14, 2009








/s/
      Samuel M. SkipperSamuel
      M. Skipper,
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the periodic report of ENERGENX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the
“Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, GARY A. BEDINI,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





(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 Company at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.





Date:
      November 10, 2006


By:
            /s/
              Gary
              A. BediniGary
                A. Bedini
Manufacturing Flow Sheet(CBI) Attachment 5

Pa g e1/1 TS -H201PP ( CBI .)CBI
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-31305

Summary Calendar

 

WISTING FIERRO RUIZ ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

WISTING FIERRO RUIZ; JAIRO FERNANDO RIASCOS;

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JANET RENO, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,

Defendants,

JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; 

KEITH HALL, Warden; RITA A. STANLEY; 

R. KEVIN MCHUGH; NANCY A. HOOKS; 

U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, DIRECTOR; 

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-191

- - - - - - - - - -

March 24, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wisting Fierro Ruiz (federal prisoner No. 59534-079) and

Jairo Fernando Riascos (federal prisoner No. 05062-003) appeal
No. 96-31305

-2-

the dismissal of their complaint seeking monetary damages for

alleged civil rights violations arising out of deportation

proceedings initiated by the Attorney General. We affirm on the

alternative basis that the district court lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction to review appellants’ claim. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(g).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1988-C, Ltd's balance sheet and statement of
operations contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         41,353
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               75,017
<PP&E>                                         1,533,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,237,719)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 370,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,658
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     364,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   370,535
<SALES>                                        132,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,838
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  46,300<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                54,079
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            54,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   54,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses,  production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-38765 on Form S-3, Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-38759 on Form S-4 and Registration Statement No.
333-71063 on Form S-8 of Armor Holdings, Inc. of our report dated February 8,
1999, appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10K of Armor Holdings, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1998 and to the reference to us under the heading of
"Experts" in the Prospectuses which are part of these Registration Statements.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche
Santa fe de Bogota, Colombia
May 26, 1999
#### Gusta Mae Bourg PREJEAN, et al. v. FIRST MISSISSIPPI CORPORATION, INC., et al.

No. 87-C-1078.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Ingolia, Richard K. — Other; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 86CA 0242; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 236239.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 885.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.