alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard J.H. Coxall, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report to Form 20-F/A of Aries Maritime Transport
Limited (the "Company");

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 Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Company's other certifying officer 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 Company 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 Company, 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 Company'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; and

        c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

        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 Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

        b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: April 18, 2007

/s/ Richard J.H. Coxall
-------------------------
Richard J.H. Coxall
Chief Financial Officer



SK 23248 0002 764951
#### BUNN v. STATE.

No. 25124.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 14, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant. George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty.,' of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Driving while intoxicated upon a public highway is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

*138This court is without jurisdiction, here, for the reason that the record reflects no notice of appeal was given and entered, as required by law.

,The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 9      | 57     | 10     | 225    | 3      | 6      | 20     | 41     | 90     | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 40     | 44     | 30     | 72     | 2      | 128    | 46     | 1      | 8      | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 42     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
1

Filed 9/11/24 P. v. C.G. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E082795

(Super.Ct.No. FELSB23000071)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kawika Smith, 

Judge. Dismissed.

Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant C.G. was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code1, §211) and 

was sentenced to prison. The Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that she met the 

criteria for being committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and required her to 

accept treatment as a condition of parole. Defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 

2966 challenging the BPT’s determination that she be committed. The court found 

defendant met the criteria of an MDO and ordered her to remain committed to the State 

Department of Mental Health and continue receiving treatment.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting 

forth a statement of the case and a statement of the facts, and advising that he has found 

no arguable issues. Counsel argues that due process requires this court to undertake an 

independent review of the appellate record to determine whether this appeal presents any

arguable issues. (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) {AOB 8, 

37-42} However, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error.

(People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312-314 (Taylor) [Wende and Anders

procedures do not apply in appeals from orders committing MDO’s]; see , People v. 

Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1236-1237; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 

Cal.4th 529, 543-544 (Ben C.) [Wende procedures do not apply to 

Lanterman- Petris- Short Act conservatorship proceeding].)

1

 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

indicated.
3

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. She has 

not filed one. Defendant asks us to exercise our discretion to retain the appeal 

(See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7), yet she offers no legitimate reason for us 

to do so. Under the circumstances, we shall dismiss the appeal. (Taylor, supra, 160 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 313-314.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER

J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the issuer's
financial  statements  at November 30, 2000, (Unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             AUG-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                  NOV-30-2000
<CASH>                                                       255
<SECURITIES>                                              65,199
<RECEIVABLES>                                                817
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          74,293
<PP&E>                                                    22,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                            19,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            74,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      1,400
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                 391,437
<OTHER-SE>                                              (318,544)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              74,293
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            1102
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              626
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          626
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 626
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.000)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.000)






</TABLE>
ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7712

ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAY VANNOY; DAVID B. FREEDMAN; TOM E. HORNE; LEIGH C. 

BRICKER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00055-FDW)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 29, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert W. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert W. Johnson appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. We 

previously dismissed this appeal as untimely. Johnson has now 

filed a petition for panel rehearing. Upon review of the 

petition, we grant panel rehearing and affirm.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Johnson’s informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the 

district court’s disposition, Johnson has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. We also deny Johnson’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

BREE MCCLESKEY

Plaintiff,

v.

TOLTECA ENTERPRISESE INC., ET 

AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 1:20-CV-166-ML

ORDER

Before the court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Reset and Extend Scheduling 

Deadlines (Dkt. #35). Upon review, the court finds the motion insufficient to grant Defendants’

sought relief. Accordingly, Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Reset and Extend Scheduling 

Deadlines is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. Dkt. #35. 

In a better effort to achieve Defendants’ aims, the undersigned ORDERS all named

parties in this suit to meet and confer, and subsequently file with the court a mutually agreeable 

amended scheduling order with all relevant dates filled in, with the exception of the final pretrial 

conference and jury trial dates. Vague requests such as “[t]he designation of testifying and rebuttal 

experts should be reset” will be denied unless accompanied with a proposed deadline. Moreover,

the parties should inform the court what month they prefer to try the case.

SIGNED January 4, 2021.

_______________________________

MARK LANE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00166-ML Document 39 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 1
#### LAWLER v. STATE.

No. 23721.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge!

The conviction is for the offense of burglary. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The indictment as well as all other matters of procedure appear to be in regular form. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
----

 Rule 13a – 14(a)/15(d) – 14(a) 

I, Gordon Samson, certify that: 

                1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CYOP Systems International  Inc.; 

                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 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 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 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 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 officers 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.
Exhibit
99.4








CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Standard
Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for the three months ended November 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I, B. Gordon Brooke, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:





1.    The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.     The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.











Date:
January 8, 2010





GORDON
BROOKE


B. Gordon
Brooke


Chief
Accounting Officer


Chief
Financial Officer and Director











-1-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence J. McCarthy, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Fromer, J.), rendered June 1, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty knowing that he could receive a sentence with a maximum prison term of 25 years and the *661sentence actually imposed, 3 to 9 years, was far less than that maximum *(see,*Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [b]). Furthermore, two other charges were dropped as a result of the plea agreement. Under such circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed by County Court *(see, People v Neira,*130 AD2d 518, *Iv denied*70 NY2d 715).

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                              
|No chart available.                                                              
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Lower 48 Federal Offshore Shale Proved Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2194
GLENNIS MCCRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-95-235-3) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glennis McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; George Davidson, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCray v. Chater , No. CA-95-235-3 (E.D. Va. July 2, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to expedite 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.

AFFIRMED
#### BUFORD v. STATE.

No. 26605.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 18, 1953.

*201No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Robbery is the offense; the punishment, fifteen years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court with no statement of facts or bills of exception, without which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Approved by the Court.