alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2
                                CFO Certification



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global  Innovative  Systems,  Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2002,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert Fletcher,
Chief Financial  Officer and Chief Operations  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  S 1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

        (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  result  of
                operations of the Company.



/s/ Robert Fletcher
Robert Fletcher, CFO and COO
August 12, 2002
# U nit ed Sta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

Nos. 06-1399, 06-2345

MINYA K. ZERU and RUSSOM B. GHEBRAI,

Petitioners,

v . ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this court, issued September 19, 2007, should be amended as follows: On cover sheet: Replace "ALBERTO F. GONZALES" with "ALBERTO R. GONZALES" On page 2, line 20: Replace "The petition is" with "The petitions are" On page 6, line 24-page 7, line 1: Delete "dated December 1999" On page 9, line 20: Replace "arrest" with "incident" On page 17, line 13: Replace "dates of sequences" with "dates or sequences" On page 20, line 14: Delete "gang" On page 30, line 7: Replace "November 23" with "November 26"
**EXHIBIT        31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**
|                                 |                                                     |                                       |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                     |
|                            |                                                |                                  |
| Date: May              17, 2006 | By:                                            | /s/ Donald              R. Uzzi  |
|                                 | Donald R. Uzzi                                           |
|                                 | Title:              Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8274-8276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant 
Director for Sanctions Enforcement, Compliance & Analysis, tel.: 202-
622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (ofac.treasury.gov).

Notice of OFAC Action(s)

    On January 31, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.

[[Page 8275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE24.000


[[Page 8276]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06FE24.001


    Dated: January 31, 2024.
Bradley T. Smith,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2024-02274 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,584
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          60,975
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     28,009
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             791
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               821
<LOANS>                                         44,144
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (538)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,071
<DEPOSITS>                                      76,270
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,978
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,356
<OTHER-SE>                                         662
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  86,071
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,101
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,738
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   176
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,015
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,564
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,569
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,446
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      279
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,028
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                        184
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   559
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (350)
<RECOVERIES>                                        50
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  538
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            346
        

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 9, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00692-CR

LESLIE KING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 0946675

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of aggravated 

robbery and sentenced to thirty years in prison on December 4, 2003. This court 

affirmed appellant’s conviction in an opinion issued February 8, 2005. See King v. 

State, 157 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d).

Appellant filed a subsequent pro se notice of appeal from the same conviction on 

August 15, 2014.
2

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence 

is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of 

Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, 

a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. 

Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. 

Id.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2018

No. 04-18-00757-CR

Loribeth MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-08-11761-CR

Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court imposed sentence on September 4, 2018. Appellant’s notice of appeal was 

due to be filed by October 4, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). On October 11, 2018, Appellant

filed a notice of appeal, and on October 18, 2018, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time 

to file a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal is GRANTED; 

Appellant’s notice of appeal is deemed timely filed. See id. R. 26.3.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Part II, Section B. 1(a) 

NCS TS-11KK6F Processing

Redacted
[No. 35366.

Department One.

November 20, 1959.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application of*Fred William James *for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.*
      *1*

*Irving C. Paul, Jr.*and *Henry Opendack,*for petitioner.

*Charles O. Carroll*and *Frank L. Sullivan,*for respondent.

Reported in 346 P. (2d) 314.

Per Curiam.

Fred William James was found guilty of assault in the third degree (a misdemeanor), and, by a judgment and sentence dated March 6, 1959, adjudged guilty of that crime and sentenced to the King county jail for

> “ . . . one year and to pay a fine of $1000 4 months of Jail Sentence and imposition of Said fine and costs sus*116pended on condition that defendant shall not molest his wife.”

A warrant of commitment to the sheriff of King county issued on that date.

March 31,1959, the defendant gave notice of appeal. Bond on appeal was fixed at five thousand dollars; James was unable to provide a bond on appeal.

The sheriff immediately returned the warrant of commitment. Since March 31, 1959, James has been held in the King county jail—not under said warrant of commitment, but as one appealing from a judgment of conviction and unable to furnish bail (see RCW 10.73.040). The appeal has been at all times since March 31, 1959, and is now pending in this court, being No. 35128 in our records.

Parenthetically, had this appeal been prosecuted with diligence, it could have been argued in September, and, in all probability, determined before this.

James filed an original application in this court for a writ of *habeas corpus*on October 19, 1959, contending that with “good time” credits he had served the entire term for which he had been sentenced.

The application came on for hearing before department one of this court on November 6, 1959. We are satisfied (1st) that the appellant has not been serving his sentence since March 31, 1959, when he gave notice of appeal; and (2nd) that if he had been serving his sentence, the application for the writ made on October 19, 1959, was premature, inasmuch as we cannot take judicial notice of the “good time” regulations of the King county jail.

We are, however, greatly concerned with the fact that a year, with four months suspended, is eight months, and that it is now eight months since March 6, 1959. If James’ conviction is affirmed, it is entirely possible that the time spent in jail pending the determination of his appeal should be credited on the sentence. (That question is not presently before us, and we do not decide it.) The time spent in jail, pending the appeal, now exceeds the portion of the sentence remaining unserved.

*117If the conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, additional jail time would be involved, if James was unable to post bail pending a new trial.

While we cannot grant the writ of *habeas corpus*requested, we can accomplish the same purpose by releasing James on his personal recognizance by order entered on our own initiative in the appeal proceeding (No. 35128), where we have unquestioned authority to determine what the bond shall be on an appeal.

Writ denied.

Prisoner ordered released on his personal recognizance.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 30, 2015

NO. 03

- 13

- 0039 0

- CR

Andria Stanley, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUST ICES GOODWIN AND BOU RLAND AFFIRMED ; MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

--

OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arg uments, the Court ho lds that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgments requiring reversal

. Accordingly , the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction for Count I. However, there was error in the judgment of conviction for Count III

t hat requires correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment of conviction

for Count I I I to reflect that the “Statute for Offense” is “2 2 .02(a)( 2 ) Penal Code .” The judgment,

as modified, is affirmed

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.
. . .

. ..I OFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ‘ TEXAS

Eonorebh Molda Oeab~ 

### Griml~l Dlrtrlot

Attorney



### war air:

Y lea
TOor nq0eat for 0 

### rooelre6 a06 OUT*- iullyoonri6~r.4 **by thir**  **13 0otr**  **rFm your**  **Fe.** 

### q0*rtaa f011ow:

bootdl rrslr Proalaot Tramtee, alro holh
Inoltlb~ the h&110& OT all 

### BohoolMetrfat, 

### aa r&l a# Arursor4ollo6tsr.

ia ~rftosa~n

Couat~knowna8 L&n* 3UniorColla(pr 

### Dl8trlet. -'kobet the aen rroeitriQa.00 prr day rol: the tloe spentat aestladg 

### ef the 

### Ibard,en&or Article 8457.I ’ 

### *lillyou ploao*&ve w forv O~inlon ao to rh+thorOr &ot thaw -II& ot oithu ofthr, as-0 httlding 

### offioo08 Cotuxt]r Sohml Trootea 

### ta tiolatl00 OS Artlele 

### 18, 8hotioru 38 and 40 ot 

### tho Teum Coaotitution?* Artiolo 16, ii)oottcm 40, Vexa8Qmotitutiea,rue8 la pnrta0 Sollowm

T& 

### puoea shalthold or~etuoloo at tha u p 0 t a m, - NO IP~ t m 0~ 8itii

l 

### rris0 **or aoh**  Neat.

**. .**  ****** **Variour** uarptiotao, Luterhl 

### hue, arm provfbd f or l o t h i s

l Htion. 

### Qao **osrioe** 

### or cou0t.y

ekhosl TrImtee 18 080 of Ilblurat. (5eaArtlalot(UtQ, toram'a ¬ate4 Turn 

### e&v&l stotutoo. 

### )

You state %a your 

### &etter t&t &. Abbey OM et 

### the W8t~8ehoolTrwt~m aloo hofd8tbl,oftisoofjuh~~oo~- 

### Collootor

or the Port kthur Xadqwwat plahool 

### Dlatriet.

we aooao 

### from

pur titter

t&t thl# i8 aloo an offfoa of l

### m~loNut. 

### If this 

### l

mumption **be aorlrot**  **it i8**  **our opiaton**  thot 

### Bkotlon4@ of Artialo16 oi wqBtrt@ CkmtlttMoa **prehiblto** 

### ~.Ab+oo trow bold- thi38s ta O+Pto OS **a&amont** 

### at **tbo**

l Artisle 

### 16, BootInn **33 of**  **owz State**  **Constltu$lon** reads **In part**  de **Tallwor**

T r h o c r ~ e a o tl 0tt0 g

o ff i o e ro



### a? thfo mate l

h nll **ndthoc** d r e w

t s a r pay a w a r m a t

a a ge 4

ths Tnrarury I 0 fev or o f e 0 y puooa, S ex

salmy or

o o u p u a o o - ti e n an 

### aefimt,

oftlneror appolatse, prpa bold8 ct the mm8 tian any otha otfllos or position oi 

### honor, wuot or 

### yr4fits, under t&l8 stats or the 

### United&ates, esoe;Et aa prrooribed in **tbio** Coa**stltutiOO.w** 

### IOU aat* in your lottor thrtxr. 5oint0ott, 

### oar or the 

### CountyWho01 TPrurtero, I# a taacbw **at** 

### M **JTunior** 

### ColIfis **pocritloa** 

### as & teoollui* olwrl 

### !i.attoa

40 of ArtuGti16 oi Orrr~'FOnolri r: **0ot** 

### an 

### oirioo, utlon~w0ukd not It 18 our oplnloa tbrt Beotisa 3s oi 

### Amttalo16 

### or **our Sbrti**  **Con8titcrEion ia**  nat 

### ;app&%eablo **to** ,thlo

l **itwtloa**

## boo du oo

a 0 l O o o nn~i~~. o fT t d~

i $& t o ,, & o t+ ëd nw o or p y o l r r n a t 00 t he 

## 8Ut e T r o 00 u q Sit i r r y r o f Lf rr

## B& nt m tt oobool Qlotrlot

which 4 tho l

### tfft~too

aad am toi **aad** tho **poaltiep of**  toaohalr 

### ia.thoLuar Jualor Collypr. :v*rJ .waa$lJ your0
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO RICO ANGELES,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70039

Agency No. A031

- 249

- 743

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

S ubmitted April 11 , 201 8 **

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.

Antonio Rico Angeles, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal claims regarding United States

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 70039

citizen ship

. Hughes v. Ashcroft , 255 F.3d 752, 755 (9 th Cir. 2001) . We deny the

petition for review.

The agency did not err in determining that Rico Angeles did not establish

eligibility for United States citizenship, where he was born in 1959 in the

Philippines to two citizens of the Philippines, his fathe r never obtained United

States citizenship, and his mother obtained United States citizenship in 1980 when

he was no longer under the age of eighteen

. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401 (1959), 1432

(1980); Minasyan v. Gonzales , 401 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (d erivative

citizenship is determined under the law in effect at time the critical events givi ng

rise to eligibility occurred ); Hughes , 255 F.3d at 760 (8 U.S.C. § 1431 granted

automatic citizenship only to those children who were under the age of 18, and

wh o met the other criteria, on February 27, 2001)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 20, 2020

No. 04-18-00865-CV

IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF M.A.C.

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI23282

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 17, 2020, we abated this appeal to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine 

whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and whether 

appellant’s court-appointed counsel had abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). 

We received a supplemental clerk’s record on August 19, 2020, containing the trial court’s 

findings that appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, that appellant is indigent, and that 

appellant’s court-appointed attorney, Judith Wemmert, has constructively abandoned the appeal. 

The trial court did not impose sanctions, and it appointed new appellate counsel, David McLane, 

to represent appellant in this appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of this court

and that appellant’s brief is due on or before September 21, 2020. No extensions of time will 

be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1246 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1246

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2011

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the 
          Department of Defense for printing and reproduction.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN AMOUNTS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED 
              TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR PRINTING AND 
              REPRODUCTION.

    The following amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal year 2012 for the Department of Defense are hereby reduced by 10 
percent:
            (1) The amount for Operation and Maintenance for the Army, 
        for printing and reproduction.
            (2) The amount for Operation and Maintenance for the Navy, 
        for printing and reproduction.
            (3) The amount for Operation and Maintenance for the Marine 
        Corps, for printing and reproduction.
            (4) The amount for Operation and Maintenance for the Air 
        Force, for printing and reproduction.
            (5) The amount for Operation and Maintenance for Defense-
        wise activities, for printing and reproduction.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 4, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```