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



CERTIFICATION



I, David Pearce, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of MAX Resource Corp. (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(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 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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Company's other certifying officer(s) 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 Company'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 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: June 29, 2007 |  | /s/David Pearce                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  | David Pearce, Chief Financial Officer
Joe HOLT v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-0648

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied September 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CALIPH BANKS, ID # 59878-079, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-2254-N 

)

DAN JOSLIN, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED February 24, 2006.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02254-N Document 11 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 32
EX PARTE Reed Max KNIGHT

CR-16-1159

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 14, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
# C_2018190EN.01000401.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/4

---

Appeal brought on 21 November 2017 by Grupo Osborne S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2017 in Case T-350/13, Jordi Nogués v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case C-651/17 P)

(2018/C 190/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Grupo Osborne S.A. (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Jordi Nogués S.L. and European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 12 April 2018, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Osborne S.A. to bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line, Inc.;



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 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 and change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 17, 2005



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II             
|    |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II                 
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director



27
Statement Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
undersigned, Sherry L. Couturier, CFO of Hammonds Industries, Inc., Inc, a
Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by
Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following
of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31,
2007.






The
undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects, the
financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.






Date:
March 18, 2008


Sherry L.
Couturier


CFO /s/ Sherry L.
Couturier
Case 3:05-cv-00563-N Document 6 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 16
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00866]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 16, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
587 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1059, K2025-1058.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00866 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Gina
L. Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of Organa Technologies Group, Inc., (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By: /s/ Gina L.
Bennett


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


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





Date: August 19, 2008
Case 3:04-mi-00005 Document 1471 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1870
Valentino TELFORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3648

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

Filed 2/24/21 P. v. McElroy CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CLARK LESLIE MCELROY III,

Defendant and Appellant.

C090853

(Super. Ct. No. CM037696)

Defendant Clark Leslie McElroy III appeals after the trial court denied his petition 

for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.91. His appointed counsel asked 

this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any 

arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant 

was informed that he could file a supplemental brief but did not file one. We conclude 

defendant is not entitled to Wende review and dismiss the appeal.
2

DISCUSSION

Review pursuant to Wende, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. 

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493], is required only in the first appeal of 

right from a criminal conviction. (Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 555 

[95 L.Ed.2d 539]; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 536-537; People v. 

Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 500-501 (Serrano).)

The right to Anders/Wende review applies only at appellate proceedings where 

defendant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel. (Serrano, supra, 

211 Cal.App.4th at p. 500; Conservatorship of Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 536-537.) 

The constitutional right to counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further. 

(Serrano, at pp. 500-501.) While a criminal defendant has a right to appointed counsel in 

an appeal from an order after judgment affecting his or her substantial rights (Pen. Code, 

§§ 1237, 1240, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 15421, subd. (c)), that right is statutory, not 

constitutional. Thus, defendant is not entitled to Wende review in such an appeal. (See 

Serrano, at p. 501 [no Wende review for denial of postconviction motion to vacate guilty 

plea pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1016.5].)

The appeal before us, “although originating in a criminal context, is not a first 

appeal of right from a criminal prosecution, because it is not an appeal from the judgment 

of conviction.” (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 501.)

Applying Serrano here, defendant has no right to a Wende review of the trial 

court’s order denying his section 1170.91 resentencing petition. Because neither 

defendant nor his counsel raise any claim of error in the criminal conviction, we dismiss 

defendant’s appeal.
3

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

 

HULL, J.

We concur:

 

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

 

MURRAY, J.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TAMBURELLO MARQUIS GRAHAM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-870

[July 12, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2009-CF-014160-AXXX-MB.

Tamburello Marquis Graham, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICECHAIR OF THE APPELLATE COURT 

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 268

APPELLATE COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 2017, the Honorable Patricia A. McCullough is 

hereby designated as Chair, and Robert M. Palumbos, Esquire, is designated as ViceChair, of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee, commencing June 30, 2017.
STATE of Louisiana v. Floyd M. FLUGENCE

NO. 2018-KH-0973

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal Service TM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1102 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-877, K2025-878.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31684 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Malik Hamid ZAMAN, Appellant, v. Derrick M. CREW and Ada Berrios, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### John N. Lee, *Appellant,*v. Mrs. Leitta Hall, as Administratrix of the Estate of Dan Hall, Deceased, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 9, 1927.

*Davis & Pepper,*for Appellant;

*Wm. T. Hendry,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted'to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to‘the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Byron V. WILLIAMS, Jr. v. Lee ZURIK, Louisiana Media Company, LLC, WVUE, LLC of Delaware, Raycom Media, Inc. and Edward Theriot

NO. 2019-CC-0083

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00227- CR

P edro P . Morale s, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 340 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. C-1 4-1 091- SA, H ONO RAB LE B EN WO ODW ARD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Pedro Pere z Morales was c harg ed with unlawf ul possession of a fire arm by a felon, a third deg ree felony
. Tex
. P en al C o d e § 46.04(a)
. A jury found Morales g uilty and assessed his punishment at five y ear s in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice and a

$2,000 fine. Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there
are no arg

uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 3 8 6 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Pe nson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 86–87 (1988).Appellant rec eived a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his rig ht to examine

the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. a t 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. We have not re ceive d a pro se brief f rom the appe llant. We have co n d u ct ed an independe nt revie w of the rec ord, including appellate counsel’s brief

, and find no reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the re cord pr esents no ar g uably meritorious g rounds for r eview a nd the appe al is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted. The judgme nt of conviction is aff irmed.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Affir med Filed: Oc tober 7, 2015 Do Not Publish

2
Janice Elaine WILSON v. Earle Frederick WILSON III

2150535

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 3, 2017

Reh. denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22

- 0041 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. JAMES MICHAEL PARKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Josey Loney is granted an extension of time to and including October 1 , 2022 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 15 2022

06/15/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0041
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6307** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
F RANTZ MICHEL, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a Freon , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States Distric t Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00141

- HEH

- 4 )

Submitted : July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dawn Elise Murphy

- Johnson, Barry Joel Pollack, MILLER & CHEVALIER, CHARTERED, Washington, DC, for Appellant. John Staige Davis, V, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Randy Carl Stoker, Assistant United States Attorney, Norf olk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Frantz Michel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appea lable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDanie l , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion s tates 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 Michel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED