alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2

       CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
       -----------------------------------------------------------------


I, Brian Kathler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ViaVid Broadcasting,
Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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 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 annual 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 annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual 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

<PAGE>


6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual 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.




Date:  July 15, 2003                                 /s/Brian Kathler
                                                     ----------------
                                                     Brian Kathler
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
In Re Anthony D. JONES, Petitioner.

No. 17-8559.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# L_2013081EN.01003101.xml

| 21.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 81/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 81/31

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 229/2012

of 7 December 2012

amending Annex XIX (Consumer protection) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011 amending Part II of Annex I to Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council providing additional assumptions for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011 amending Part II of Annex I to Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council providing additional assumptions for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 7h (Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIX to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32011 L 0090: Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011 (OJ L 296, 15.11.2011, p. 35).’. |
| --- | --- |

—

32011 L 0090: Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011 (OJ L 296, 15.11.2011, p. 35).’.

Article 2

The text of Directive 2011/90/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 8 December 2012, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 7 December 2012.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Atle LEIKVOLL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 296, 15.11.2011, p. 35.

1

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
/hy>. //«»/jta»i/j/*„j**j4-.m^dmfry

^S**»i

#

^/^^te^&TXf^jgf

JMd&4M*>& PjfMw no? ml ^ J&XMioKj&^/zsie^^Ji*4wjd'^w_2£i__

/f

-4r

JZfcm>/(ok/

W&U*//feSJTsf &&4?^& *-/

Jifal

IWd^sW PaUJL

FILED IN

14th COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON.TEXAS

FEB 09 2015

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK

«=r*6*K
Z?

^u^#/%2e^ Jcjl ^Sy^c

yj
EXHIBIT 23.1


                            KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA , LLC








To Whom It May Concern:                                           March 14, 2006



The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, Certified Public Accountant, LLC hereby consents to
the inclusion of his report of February 9, 2006, accompanying the audited
financial statements of Sierra Resource Group, Inc., as at December 31, 2004 and
December 31, 2005, in the Form 10KSB.


Very truly yours,


/s/ KYLE L. TINGLE
____________________________
    Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC

















P.O. Box 50141, Henderson, Nevada 89016, Phone: (702) 434-8452, Fax: (702)
436-4218, e-mail: ktingle@kyletinglecpa.com
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

423 CA 11-02265 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

GERTRUDE A. LANE AND GEORGE A. LANE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TEXAS ROADHOUSE HOLDINGS, LLC, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP, SYRACUSE (JONATHAN H. BARD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RICHARD J. SARDANO, PC, LIVERPOOL (JOHN E. HEISLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered May 3, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that a “dangerous and defective condition” on defendant’s property caused Gertrude A. Lane (plaintiff) to slip and fall. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reject the contention of defendant that it met its initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that plaintiffs were unable to identify what caused plaintiff to fall “ ‘without engaging in speculation’ ” ( Smart v Zambito , 85 AD3d 1721, 1722). “It is well established . . . that ‘[a] moving party must affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof’ ” ( Dodge v City of Hornell Indus. Dev. Agency , 286 AD2d 902, 903, quoting Orcutt v American Linen Supply Co. , 212 AD2d 979, 980; see Brown v Smith , 85 AD3d 1648, 1649). “Although [mere] conclusions based upon surmise, conjecture, speculation or assertions are without probative value . . ., a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiffs show[ ] facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred” ( Seelinger v Town of Middletown , 79 AD3d 1227, 1229 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, although plaintiff was unable to identify the specific source of her fall at her deposition-2- 423 CA 11-02265
due to the onset of unrelated mental status issues, plaintiffs “submitt[ed] evidence establishing that she fell in the immediate vicinity of [several uneven and unsteady pavement blocks of which defendant had actual notice], thereby rendering any other potential cause of her fall ‘sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” ( Nolan v Onondaga County , 61 AD3d 1431, 1432).
We have considered the remaining contentions of the parties and conclude that they are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Mamie W. Crandall, a widow, and R. P. Clark, *Appe*llants, v. Elizabeth T. Owen, *Appellee.*

Division A.

Opinion filed February 13, 1929.

*S. J. Barco,*for Appellants;

*Shipp, Evans & Kline,*for Appellee.

Terrell, C. J.

The bill of complaint herein prays that a trust be decreed on certain lands in. Dade County, more specifically therein described and that an accounting be had between appellee as complainant below and appellants as defendants below. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and appeal was taken from that order.

The sole question raised by the demurrer is that the bill is multifarious. •

We think the bill was amenable to the assault made on it. It is shown that it involved two separate and independent transactions in which the parties were in part different and in which the subject matter was entirely different. This court has frequently expressed itself on the question of multifariousness. We do not see that further discussion of that subject would serve any useful purpose. Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480, 49 So. R. 31; Farrell v. Forest Investment Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. R. 216; Craft v. *199Craft, 74 Fla. 262, 76 So. R. 772; Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 59 Fla. 428, 52 So. R. 588.

The decree below is therefore reversed.

Reversed.

Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Paul TANAKA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-619.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA GINA M. BENAVIDES GREGORY T. PERKES NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE 901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401 361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL) 361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BLDG. 100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9 956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL) 956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

April 28, 2015

Hon. Nancy E. Rister County Clerk Williamson County Courthouse P. O. Box 18 Georgetown, TX 78627

Re: Cause No. 13

- 13

- 00393

- CV Tr.Ct.No. 12

- 1551

- CC4 Style: HILARIO VILLANUEVA AND GRACIELA VILLANUEVA v. DEUTSCHE BANK

NATIONAL TRUST COM PANY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC TRUST 2003

- NC10, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2003

- NC10

The judgment of the trial court in the above cause was AFFIRMED by this Court on the 12 th day of February, 2015. The mandate is enclosed.

Costs of the appeal were adjudged against appellant, HILARIO VILLANUEVA AND GRACIELA VILLANUEVA.

Pursuant to Section 51.204(b) of the Government Code, the attorneys of record are hereby notified that any exhibits sub mitted to the Court by a party may be withdrawn by that party or the party’s attorney of record within 30 days. Exhibits on file with the Court will be destroyed three (3) years after final disposition of the case or at an earlier date if ordered by the C ourt.



### Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch Enc.

cc: Jeffrey S. Kelly (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL) Hon. Christopher S. Ferguson (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4031 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. JOYCE of Ohio (for himself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. HUIZENGA, Mrs. DINGELL, 

Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. RYAN, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. HIGGINS of New York, Mr. 

RUSH, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. MOORE, Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, Mr. MORELLE, 

Mr. KATKO, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. MITCHELL, 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. COLLINS of New York, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. UPTON, Mr. REED, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. 

STAUBER, Mr. GIBBS, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. LEVIN of 

Michigan, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. KIND, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mr. FOSTER, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. 

BERGMAN, Mr. TURNER, and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Great Lakes Restora5 tion Initiative Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘GLRI Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4031 IH

1 SEC. 2. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE REAU2 THORIZATION. 

3 Section 118(c)(7)(J)(i) of the Federal Water Pollu4 tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7)(J)(i)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘is authorized’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘are authorized’’; 

8 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert9 ing a semicolon; 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘this paragraph $300,000,000’’ 

11 and inserting the following: ‘‘this paragraph— 

12 ‘‘(I) $300,000,000’’; and 

13 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(II) $375,000,000 for fiscal 

15 year 2022; 

16 ‘‘(III) $400,000,000 for fiscal 

17 year 2023; 

18 ‘‘(IV) $425,000,000 for fiscal 

19 year 2024; 

20 ‘‘(V) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 

21 2025; and 

22 ‘‘(VI) $475,000,000 for fiscal 

23 year 2026.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# L_2014211EN.01004601.xml

| 17.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/46

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 103/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 270 of 4 October 2012
  )

On page 2, Article 1, point (2), new point 149:

for:

‘Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011
  ’,

read:

‘Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs’.

Echinococcus multilocularis

---
Travis Kenneth BYNUM, petitioner, v. FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC.

No. 16-8080.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL LINDSEY, § § No. 411, 2018 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No s. N1708003578, § N1708006225 Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: March 27, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before STRINE ; Chief Justice, VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices.

ORDER

This 9 th day of April, 2019, after careful c onsideration of the parties’ briefs

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgment of the Superior

Court should be affirmed on the basis of a nd for the reasons assigned in its February

8, 2018 transcript ruling.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
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 Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.
 SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[3/24/2022 through 4/14/2022]
Firm name
Firm address
Date accepted for
                             investigation
Product(s)Spot Design, LLC d/b/a Zero Hour Parts
275 Metty Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
4/4/2022
The firm manufactures aerospace parts.Superior Precision Sheet Metal Corp
4715 North Chestnut Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80907
4/11/2022
The firm manufactures miscellaneous metal parts.LBZ, LLC d/b/a Platinum Aerostructures
1200 East Highland Avenue, Nevada, MO 64772
4/11/2022
The firm manufactures sheet metal fabrications.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Bryan Borlik, Director.


[FR Doc. 2022-08414 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
Myles RAMZEE, petitioner, v. Robert GILMORE, Superintendent, Correctional Institution at Greene, et al.

No. 17-5782.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
John L. WEEKS, petitioner, v. KANSAS.

No. 17-5865.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied.
Opinion issued December 13, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 0 0 84 2
- CR

——————————— EX PARTE JOSHUA JERM AINE NELSON , Appellant

On Appeal from the 4 5 8th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1 5
- DCR
- 068 4 07

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A ppellant, J oshua Jermaine Nelson , challenges the trial court’s order denying his pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal without a timely filed notice of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a); see also Castillo v. State , 36 9 S.W. 3 d 196 ,2

198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012 ); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A defendant’s notice of appeal is timely if it is filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or the trial court signs an appealable order

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 26.2(a); see Bayless v. State , 91 S.W.3d 801, 80 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ; Ex parte Matthews , 452 S.W.3d 8, 1 0

– 11 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 201 4 , no pet.) ; see also Ex parte Smith , 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“ The denial of relief on a pretrial writ of habeas corpus may be appealed immediately

. . . . ”). Here , t he trial court signed the order denying appellant’s pretrial habeas application o n July 31 , 201 8

. A ppellant’s notice of appeal , therefore, w as due to be filed no later than August 30 , 201 8

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26. 2 (a) (1) ; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522. Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed on September 21 , 201 8 , w as untimely to perfect an appeal of the July 31 , 201 8 order , and we have no basis for jurisdiction over the appeal

. 1 See Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522; Ex parte Matthews , 462 S.W.3d at 1 4 ; Few v. State , 136 S.W.3d 707, 713 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2004, no pet.); Green v. State , 999 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref’d)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM

1 The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless he filed a response showing how this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal. Cf. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a) . Appellant did not respond.3

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Jennings and Bland

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
Earl FULGIAN and Michael T. Corbin, petitioners, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 17-5525.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.