alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2  RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION  I, David Fulton, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Caspian International Oil Corporation;  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 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and the internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions after 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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  November  12, 2007 /s/ David Fulton David Fulton Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the cancellation of an award of approximately $10,000,000 for Year 1 of funding to MINSA.

# DATES:

The notice of award was cancelled on 04/05/2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lily de Leon, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 18 Avenida 11-37, Zona 15, VHIII, 502) 23298426 or (404) 718-2645 USA. Email:                         *izo0@cdc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On March 9, 2022, CDC announced a single-source award to support MINSA to scale up high-impact HIV prevention, testing and treatment models in Panama. This award is cancelled in its entirety.

Dated: April 5, 2022.

Terrance Perry,

Chief Grants Management Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2022-07542 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-539]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. TQ97-4-23-000 and TM97-7-23-000]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes In 
FERC Gas Tariff

January 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 31, 1996 Eastern Shore Natural Gas 
Company (ESNG) tendered for filing certain revised tariff sheets in the 
above captioned docket as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, with a proposed effective date of February 1, 1997.
    ESNG states that the revised tariff sheets included herein are 
being filed pursuant to Sections 21 and 23 of the General Terms and 
Conditions of ESNG's Gas Tariff to reflect changes in ESNG's 
jurisdictional rates. The sales rates set forth herein reflect a 
decrease of $0.4057 per dt in the Demand Charge and a decrease of 
$0.6870 per dt in the Commodity Charge, as measured against ESNG's Out-
Of-Cycle Quarterly PGA filing, Docket No. TQ97-3-23-000, et al., filed 
on December 27, 1996 to be effective on January 1, 1997.
    ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its 
jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rule 211 and Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Sec. 385.211 and Sec. 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Sec. 154.210 of 
the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-539 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         6686743
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   45913577
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        10107208
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          10143932
<LOANS>                                      144475196
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2034079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               217320549
<DEPOSITS>                                   173498802
<SHORT-TERM>                                  15942000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            3890123
<LONG-TERM>                                    6821342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       3962774
<OTHER-SE>                                    13223508
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               217320549
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                6623201
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1365313
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 38077
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               8066591
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3177113
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3706993
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4359598
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   390000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3648642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1323047
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1323047
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    855064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.46
<LOANS-NON>                                    3639046
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                828710
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1767483
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   157189
<RECOVERIES>                                     33785
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2034079
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        2034079
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023278EN.01001101.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 June 2023 — Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd v European Commission, Taminco BVBA

(Case C-259/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Plant protection products - Active substance - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Article 4(5) - Article 14(1) - Article 20(1) - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 - Article 12(3) - Article 14(1) - Non-renewal of the approval of the active substance thiram for the purpose of placing it on the market - Rights of the defence - Precautionary principle - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 278/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, (represented by G. Koleva and M. ter Haar, acting as Agents), Taminco BVBA (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---
<PAGE> 1

                                   Exhibit 32.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lee G. Christianson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

     (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: March 30, 2011

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6896

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT, a/k/a Lanky, a/k/a Donovan Smith, a/k/a Richard 

Onyett, a/k/a Bernard Barber, a/k/a James D. Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00341-MBS-3)

Submitted: November 12, 2019 Decided: November 19, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Owen Harriot, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Owen Harriot seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60 motion and denying reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal.

Because Harriot sought reconsideration of the district court’s previous order 

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, the district court’s orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A COA will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find debatable or wrong the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-

85 (2000). Where the district court denies the motion on procedural grounds, the movant 

must demonstrate both that the court’s dispositive procedural ruling is debatable or wrong 

and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harriot has not made 

the requisite showing. Because the claims Harriot raised challenged the validity of his 

convictions, the motions should have been construed as successive § 2255 motions. See 

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-40 (4th Cir. 2015). In the absence of prefiling 

authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a successive 

§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h) (2012).
3

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8863 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8863

    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
     monuments in Utah except by express authorization of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 3, 2020

 Mr. Stewart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
     monuments in Utah except by express authorization of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Utah Land Sovereignty Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN UTAH.

    The proviso of the last sentence of the first section of the Act of 
September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is 
amended by inserting ``or Utah'' after ``Wyoming''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021471EN.01006501.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/65

---

Application brought on 4 October 2021 — dennree v EUIPO (BioMarkt)

(Case T-641/21)

(2021/C 471/91)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: dennree GmbH (Töpen, Germany) (represented by: K. Röttgen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark BioMarkt in the colours green and brown — Application No 18 309 662

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 in Case R 783/2021-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the partial refusal of the trade mark application and register the trade mark as it appears in the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the partial refusal of the trade mark application and register the trade mark as it appears in the application.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021471EN.01005701.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/57

---

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Vaillant (Puma)

(Case T-623/21)

(2021/C 471/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vaillant GmbH (Remscheid, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Puma — Application for registration No 17 867 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 1875/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refuse the application for the contested mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refuse the application for the contested mark;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Page | 1 NO. 2014 -006760-1

MARY BROCK A/K/A CINDY BROCK § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW Plaintiff, § §
V. § NO. ONE §
CYNTHIA ANDREWS §
Defendant. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Defendant, Cynthia Andrews, party to this case, files this Notice of Appeal seeking to

alter the trial court's judgment or other appealable order.

The trial court, trial court case number and style of this matter are shown in the above

caption.

The judgment or order appealed from was signed on March 13, 2015.

Cynthia Andrews desires to appeal the judgment of the Court.

This appeal is being taken to the Second Court of Appeals.

This notice is being filed by Cynthia Andrews.

This is an accelerated appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Renea Overstreet
Texas Bar No. 24066704
Em ail: rdolaw@gmail.com 2100 N. Main Street, Suite 228 Fort Worth, TX 76164 Tel. (817) 810-9747 Fax. (1-855) 299-5593 Attorney for Defendant Cynthia Andrews E-FILED TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 3/19/2015 3:11:01 PM MARY LOUISE GARCIA COUNTY CLERK BY: L.S. S.Page | 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 19, 2015 a true and correct copy of Defendant's Notice of Appeal was served on Jason K. Naumann electronically through the electronic filing manager.

/s/ Renea Overstreet
September 10, 2015

Mr. Raul Granda

President

Eye Above Miami, Corp.

3352 NE 11th Drive

Homestead, FL 33033

Dear Mr. Granda :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21, subpart H, and § § 45.23, 91.9(b)(2), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b),

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cann ot process your request and what you should

do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can no t Process Your Request

We received your June 3, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Eye Above Miami, Corp.

filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2649 , but we are unable to process your request any further.

Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to

consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption , please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34