alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Gerald R. Tuskey, Chief Financial Officer of Eurasia Energy Limited, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eurasia Energy Limited;



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(d)) 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



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.









November 10, 2006

/s/Gerald R. Tuskey

Date

Gerald R. Tuskey,

Chief Financial Officer and Director
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5423 

To extend and modify the suspension of duty on polyisobutylene. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. FERGUSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the suspension of duty on 

polyisobutylene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POLYISOBUTYLENE. 

4 (a) REDUCTION OF DUTY ON POLYISOBUTYLENE.— 

5 Heading 9902.24.37 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

6 of the United States (relating to 1-Propene-2-methyl 

7 homopolymer) is amended— 

8 (1) in the general rate of duty column, by strik9 ing ‘‘Free’’ and inserting ‘‘3%’’; and 

10 (2) in the effective period column, by striking 

11 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5423 IH

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

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41176

Summary Calendar

 

ERNEST D. NEWMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LARRY A. JOHNS, Warden, Michael Unit; MICHAEL L. STARKEY,

Assistant Warden, Michael Unit; ROBERT D. HERRERA, Michael

Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CV-288

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

May 10, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ernest D. Newman, Texas prisoner # 560787, appeals the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint for failure to prosecute or to obey a court

order. Newman has failed to brief the relevant issue, as he has

provided neither argument nor authorities to show that the

district court erred in dismissing his suit. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P.
No. 00-41176 

-2-

28(a)(9). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

This dismissal of a frivolous appeal constitutes one strike

against Newman for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Newman has

already accumulated one other strike in this court. See Newman

v. Brock, No. 00-40959 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2001). Once Newman

accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to

proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS

WARNING ISSUED.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany  Catskill  Litigation  Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended March 31, 2007;

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Catskill  Litigation  Trust on Form
10-QSB for the period  ended  March 31,  2007 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul A. deBary, Acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Catskill Litigation Trust,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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
          Section 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
          as amended; and

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

                                    /s/ Paul A. deBary
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Paul A. deBary
                                    Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                    Date: May 14, 2007

      (1) A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906
          has been provided to Catskill Litigation Trust and will be retained by
          Catskill Litigation Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
          Commission or its staff upon request.

          The foregoing  certification  is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
          U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as
          a separate disclosure document.
```
No. 92-366 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PERCIE LEE JONES, Personal Representative: In the Matter of the estate of WALTER ROYSTON JONES, Deceased Plaintiff and Appellant,

CLIFFORD BUNCH and SUNNY REVES, Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Percie Lee Jones,Missoula, Montana (pro se) For Respondent: James E. Congdon, Congdon Law Offices, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: June 24, 1994 Decided: August 111 1gg4 Filed: 

## AUGZ11994
CLERKOFSUPREME @Q~RT

.- GTmBOF~~~NTA~JA
"~l;?rkJustice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff Percie Lee Jones, Personal Representative for the Estate of Walter Royston Jones, appeals the findings and conclusions of the District Court of the FourthJudicial District, Missoula County, in a proceeding against the defendants in which plaintiff claimed defendantshad fraudulentlyconverted propertyof the estate of Walter RoystonJonesto their ownuse. We affirm the judgment in favor of the defendants. The sole issue for review is whether the findings of the District Court are clearly erroneous. Findings of adistrict court are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial evidence. Interstate Prod. Credit Asstnv. DeSaye (1991), 250 Mont. 320, 323, 820 P.2d 1285, 1287. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it consists of more than a scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance. Barrettv. Asarco, Inc. (1990)

## , 245 Mont

# . 196, 200, 799 P.2d 1078, 1080. Substantial evidence must be greater than trifling or frivolous but isbinding on this Court although itmay appear inherently weak. Kitchen Krafters v. Eastside Bank of Montana (1990), 242 Mont. 155, 164, 789 P.2d 567, 572. Here the District Court determined that all the property of the deceased was accurately accounted for in the probate and distributed by the court, that the motor vehicles were properly distributed, that the respondents did not convert property of the estate to their own use, that the respondents did not act 2negligently or carelessly in transporting the deceased to the hospital and did not fail to obtain proper medical care for him. This Court has reviewed the record and concludes that the findings of the District Court are supported by substantial evidence therein. Accordingly, applying the three-part test of DeSave, we hold the District Court's findings are not clearly erroneous. Pursuant to Section 

### I,Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, thisdecision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbepublishedby its filingasapublic document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company. Affirmed

# .

We Concur:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the Annual Report of Coast Dental Services, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Timothy G. Merrick, principal financial and accounting officer of the
Company, certify that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) 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 as of and for the period ended
                  December 31, 2002.



/s/ TIMOTHY G. MERRICK
--------------------------------------------
Timothy G. Merrick
Vice President - Finance
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
March 28, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7452

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENDINYA DEWALTERELL HALL, a/k/a Keon, a/k/a Boosie, a/k/a 

KenBob,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00117-RBS-DEM-1; 2:16-cv-00352-RBS)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Nicholas John Xenakis, 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kendinya Dewalterell Hall seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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. McDaniel, 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 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 

Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 15




MidAmerican Energy Company
Des Moines, Iowa

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited consolidated interim
financial  information of MidAmerican  Energy Company and  subsidiaries  for the
three month  period  ended March 31, 1999 as indicated in our report dated April
28, 1999;  because we did not perform an audit,  we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly  report  on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  March  31,  1999,  is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-15387 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of a Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant  or a report  prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
May 13, 1999
Changes in Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 CHANGES IN EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
  
 The following is a summary of changes in compensation arrangements for our executive officers during the quarter ended June
30, 2005: 
  
 Effective May 31, 2005, we increased the base
salary of our executive officers by approximately 5% each. We also provided our executive officers bonuses ranging from approximately 20% to 44% of the executive officers’ annual base salary. In addition, we provided stock options to purchase
between 75,000 and 300,000 shares of Common Stock, on terms consistent with those options granted to our non-executive employees, pursuant to the 1998 Stock Plan.
JEFFERSON v. WASTE INDUSTRIES.

No. COA05-1302.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #323983).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
LINDSEY v. CARDINAL HEALTH

No. COA05-757

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #273257).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
60 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

Development: 7%

Service: 25%

MASSACHUSETTS 

#7 

$21.3 B SPENT IN 

#13

3.2% OF STATE GDP

3.8%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$3,057

PER RESIDENT 

#6

$20.1 B CONTRACT 

#33 

23,304 NUMBER OF 

#32

$1.2 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 0%

Supplies and

Equipment: 67%

By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

10%

Other Defense

15%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Active Duty: 9%

Ci

7%

vilian: 30%

e: 2

National Guard: 34%

Reserv

Allocations, By Service 

Army

51%

Navy/Marines

8%

Air Force

38%

Other Defense

3%

Research and

53%

21%

Top Defense Contractors 

Moderna, Inc.

Raytheon Technologies

General Electric

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

General Dynamics

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory

MITRE

Noble Sales & Logisitics

L3Harris Technologies

Brighton Marine Health Center

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$20.1

$15.3 $13.8 $12.8 $10.3 $8.4 $9.1 $8.8

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

$1.2 BILLION 23,304

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

(M = millions, B = billions)

$6.9 B

$4.1 B

$2.0 B

$1.2 B

$947.9 M

$398.9 M

$365.9 M

$208.9 M

$161.4 M

$156.1 M

County

Middlesex

Hampden

Barnstable

Suffolk

Worcester

Bristol

Plymouth

Norfolk

Essex

Hampshire

Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

1,217 4,708 2,100

188 1,091 1,464

64 421 1,909

410 317 135 

32 78 623

ND 56 427 

29 41 350 

ND 21 382 

12 135 382 

14 14 184 

Reserve

2,226

2,794

0 

223 

129 

332 

308 

215 

26

0 

Total

10,251

5,537

2,394

1,085

862

ND 

728 

ND 

555 

212 
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

MASSACHUSETTS FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Middlesex

Essex

Norfolk

Berkshire

Bristol

Suffolk

Plymouth

Worcester

Hampshire

Hampden

(M = millions)

$13.5 B

$4.0 B

$537.6 M

$472.9 M

$416.4 M

$345.7 M

$323.5 M

$123.9 M

$121.1 M

$92.9 M

Middlesex

Hampden

Barnstable

Suffolk

Norfolk

Essex

Worcester

Bristol

Plymouth

Berkshire

$719.0 M

$200.0 M

$103.6 M

$80.1 M

$25.7 M

$24.5 M

$24.3 M

$20.3 M

$19.8 M

$9.0 M 

Essex

Berkshire

Middlesex

Hampshire Worcester

Norfolk

Bristol

Suffolk

Berkshire

Middlesex

Worcester

Bristol

Barnstable

Suffolk

Essex

Norfolk

Hampden

Hampden

Plymouth

Plymouth

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 6

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

1
#### In the Matter of Jeffrey M. Stein, as Democratic Commissioner of the Nassau County Board of Elections, Appellant, v John A. DeGrace, as Republican Commissioner of the Nassau County Board of Elections, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 223]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law articles 7 and 16, in effect, to direct that candidates for the public office of Member of the Nassau County Legislature shall be listed on the ballot in the column immediately following the column that lists candidates for election to the public office of Nassau County Executive at the general election to be held on November 8, 2005, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered July 13, 2005, as denied the petition, and directed that candidates for the public office of Member of the Nassau County *513Legislature shall appear in the last column of the ballot at the general election to be held, on November 8, 2005.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Election Law § 7-108 (1) provides, “[u]pon ballots for a general election, the offices shall be listed in the customary order.” The Supreme Court properly found, as a matter of fact, that the ballot in Nassau County has customarily listed candidates for the public office of Member of the Nassau County Legislature in the last ballot column *(see*Election Law § 7-108 [1]; *Marino v Canary,*104 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1984]; *Matter of Cilmi v Williams,*90 AD2d 560 [1982]; *Matter of Rubin v Sadowski,*107 Misc 2d 84 [1980], *affd*78 AD2d 686 [1980]; *Matter of Cristenfeld v Meisser,*64 Misc 2d 296, 299 [1970]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, Election Law § 7-108 (1) does not require that candidates for the legislature of every county served by a county legislature be listed on a general election ballot before candidates for all relevant town or city offices, or that the configuration of ballots in this regard must be uniform throughout the state.

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Santucci, Krausman, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
SCHIELER v. CAMPBELL.

No. COA05-797.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Montgomery (04CVS17).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


            In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Capital
Beverage Corporation (the " Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
" Report"), I, Carmine N. Stella, hereby certifies in my capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

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

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



Dated: April 11, 2003             By: /s/ Carmine N. Stella
                                  -------------------------
                                  Name: Carmine N. Stella
                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer


            In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Capital
Beverage Corporation (the " Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
" Report"), I, Carol Russell, hereby certifies in my capacity as Treasurer of
the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

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

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



Dated: April 11, 2003            By: /s/ Carol Russell
                                         ---------------------
                                  Name:  Carol Russell
                                  Title: Treasurer