alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ludvik Rolin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Victory Eagle Resources Corp., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Victory Eagle Resources Corp.;

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 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)) 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 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 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

Page 1

5.	The small business issuer's 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 and material weaknesses 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.

Date: October 31, 2007

/s/ Ludvik Rolin	Ludvik Rolin
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Page 2
Peter Richard PEREIRA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1749

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NO. 07-03-0331-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

AUGUST 12, 2003

______________________________

IN RE BENJAMIN A. HASSLER, JR., RELATOR

_________________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Benjamin A. Hassler, Jr. again seeks a writ of mandamus directing

respondent the Honorable John T. Forbis, senior judge, to consider and rule on motions

relator has filed with the district clerk of Carson County in a bill of review proceeding

pending before Judge Forbis. We must deny relator’s petition.

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court on March 10, 2003,

seeking a writ of mandamus directing Judge Forbis to rule on his application for temporary

restraining order in a bill of review proceeding seeking to correct an asserted error in a

1970 judgment of conviction for murder. See In re Hassler, No. 07-03-0119-CV

(Tex.App.–Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). The basis of relator’s bill of review
2

proceeding is that relator alleges the original judgment failed to give him credit for pretrial

confinement. We denied relator’s petition because, among other reasons, a bill of review

is not the proper vehicle for asserting the denial of credit for pretrial incarceration. Id. at

3 (citing Jackson v. Johnson, 69 S.W.3d 372 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2002, pet. denied)).

We also noted article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the exclusive

procedure for post conviction challenges and declares any other proceeding void.

Hassler, slip op. at 4.

Relator’s petition again seeks to have us compel Judge Forbis to act on motions

filed in the same bill of review proceeding. However, relator has failed to present any

authority showing the law has changed in the months since our previous opinion. The

reasons stated in our prior opinion require denial of relator’s petition.

Relator also again cites this court’s opinion in In re Christensen, 39 S.W.3d 250

(Tex.App.--Amarillo 2000) (orig. proceeding), for the proposition that the acts of giving

consideration to and ruling on motions properly filed and pending before a trial court are

ministerial acts the performance of which, in a proper case, may be enforced by

mandamus. As was the case with his previous petition, though, relator has failed to

provide us with a record demonstrating either that the matters on which he seeks a ruling

have been brought to Judge Forbis’s attention or that he has refused to take action on

them. Moreover, relator’s current petition fails even to comply with the requirements of the

appellate rules that he provide an appendix containing certified or sworn copies of the

documents showing the matters of which he complains. Tex. R. App. Proc. 52.3(j).
3

 For all these reasons, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Per Curiam
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2704 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2704

        To extend the temporary reduction of duty on Fosetyl-Al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To extend the temporary reduction of duty on Fosetyl-Al.

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

SECTION 1. FOSETYL-AL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.73 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Fosetyl-Al) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER D ENYING M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Arrington v. State

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00859

- CR

Trial court case number: 2318927

Trial court: C ri minal Court at Law No . 11 of Harris Cou nty

It is ordered that the motion for en banc r econsideration is DENIED

. All other pending

motions are DISMISSED

.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Peter Kelly

____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, K elly, Goodman, Landau

, Hightower

, and C ountiss

.

Date: December 5, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          19,721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,722,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    175,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,104,181
<PP&E>                                      42,119,800
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,571,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,817,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,145,148
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,463,051
<COMMON>                                       208,140
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,613,880)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,817,459
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,717,817
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,073,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             599,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,955,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,955,511)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,955,511)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2719 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing fluopyram and 

prothioconazole. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing 

fluopyram and prothioconazole. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING FLUOPYRAM AND 

4 PROTHIOCONAZOLE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2719 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures containing {2-[3- 

chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2- 

pyridinyl]ethyl}-α,α,αtrifluoro-o-toluamide 

(fluopyram) (CAS No. 

658066–35–4) and 2-[2-(1- 

chlorocyclopropyl)-3-(2- 

chlorophenyl)-2- 

hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydro3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione 

(prothioconazole) (CAS No. 

178928–70–6), including application adjuvants (provided 

for in subheading 

3808.91.50) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2664 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,3-dichloronitrobenzene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,3- 

dichloronitrobenzene. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.20 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2,3-dichloronitrobenzene) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2664 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2951 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Paclobutrazol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Paclobutrazol. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PACLOBUTRAZOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.01 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Paclobutrazol) is amended by striking the date in the ef7 fective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2951 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          72,037
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,037
<PP&E>                                          25,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          837,793
<BONDS>                                        280,491
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       155,616
<OTHER-SE>                                    (903,204)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (747,588)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               239,409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (245,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (245,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (245,019)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3120 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3120

To suspend temporarily the duty on staple fibers of viscose rayon, not 
carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, measuring over 1.3 
   decitex but not over 1.66 decitex and having a fiber length each 
              measuring 20 mm or more but not over 150 mm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2012

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on staple fibers of viscose rayon, not 
carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, measuring over 1.3 
   decitex but not over 1.66 decitex and having a fiber length each 
              measuring 20 mm or more but not over 150 mm.

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

SECTION 1. STAPLE FIBERS OF VISCOSE RAYON, NOT CARDED, COMBED, OR 
              OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING, MEASURING OVER 1.3 
              DECITEX BUT NOT OVER 1.66 DECITEX AND HAVING A FIBER 
              LENGTH EACH MEASURING 20 MM OR MORE BUT NOT OVER 150 MM.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Staple fibers of    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        viscose rayon,                                                     31/2015.......
                        not carded,
                        combed or
                        otherwise
                        processed for
                        spinning,
                        measuring over
                        1.3 decitex but
                        not over 1.66
                        decitex and
                        having a fiber
                        length each
                        measuring 20 mm
                        or more but not
                        over 150 mm
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        5504.10.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I, Stacey L. Moran, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of Suffolk Bancorp (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 10, 2010 

/s/ Stacey L. Moran 

Stacey L. Moran

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,862
<SECURITIES>                                       250
<RECEIVABLES>                                      541
<ALLOWANCES>                                       111
<INVENTORY>                                        654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,751
<PP&E>                                          78,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,713
<BONDS>                                         14,096
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           345
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,149
<SALES>                                          5,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,320
<CGS>                                            4,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,419)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (543)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (876)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.19)
        

</TABLE>
STATE EX REL. Derrick EDWARDS v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0232

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *917*Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

HUGHES, J., would grant the writ in part.