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

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Nicholas W. Baxter, President and Chief Executive 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.









August 13, 2007

/s/Nicholas W. Baxter

Date

Nicholas W. Baxter,

President, C.E.O. and Director
IN RE K.C.S.

No. COA06-71.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 5, 2006.

Certification Date December 27, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (05J290).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Affirmed a nd Memorandum Opinion filed March 28 , 202 4

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 548

- CR

CHRISTOPHER RIOS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10 th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22

- CR

- 1559

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeal s his conviction for theft of property with a value of $150,000 or more but less than $300,000

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(6)(A). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in
the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
STATE v. Russell William TUCKER.

No. 113A96-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

John D. Bryson, High Point, Robert L. McClellan, Greensboro, for Tucker.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of October 2006 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 8th day of November 2006 to file and serve his/her response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
Richard W. LEE, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.

No. 119A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 625 S.E.2d 567 (2006), affirming in part and reversing in part an order signed 10 June 2004 by Judge Abraham Penn Jones in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 2006.

Alan McSurely, Chapel Hill, for petitioner-appellee.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Tina A. Krasner, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. We remand to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court with instructions to determine the appropriate remedy for petitioner's discrimination claim.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

11/28/2017 COA Case No. 12-17-00258-CR

DUDLEY, TYUS ANSON Tr. Ct. No. 241-0413-17 PD-1267-17

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant’s Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Monday, January 29, 2018. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Deana Williamson, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

PAM ESTES

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
In re the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of No. 48492

- 7

- II

STEWART MICHAEL RIGGS, Petitioner.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION

J OHANSON , J.

— Stewart Riggs seeks relief from personal restraint imposed following his pleas of guilty in Kitsap County in 2014 to possession of a stolen vehicle and to second degree identity theft and in Pierce County to second degree identity theft. 1 First, as to the Kitsap County second degree identity theft conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of 57 months of confinement and 12 mon ths of community custody. Riggs argues that this sentence is illegal because the combination of the terms of confinement and community custody exceed the 60

- month statutory maximum punishment for the crime. RCW 9.35.020(3); RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c). The Stat e concedes that Riggs is correct and that the sentence violates RCW 9.94A.701(9), which requires that the term of community custody be reduced so as to not exceed the statutory maximum. We accept the State’s concession and remand Riggs’s judgment and sent ence for correction. Second, Riggs argues that the State breached the plea agreement when it did not return his cell phone and Rolex watch that the State had seized. But he presents no evidence of an agreement

1 We issued the mandate of Riggs’s direct appeal on September 23, 2015, making his February 1, 2016 petition timely filed. RCW 10.73.090(3)(b). Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two September 13, 2016No. 48492

- 7

- II

2

to return his cell phone and watch, and to th e contrary, in his statement on plea of guilty, Riggs agreed to forfeiture of all seized property. He asserts, but presents no evidence to support, that his trial counsel promised to write the return of the cell phone and watch into his judgment and

sente nce. Riggs does not demonstrate that the State breached its plea agreement or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, Riggs argues that the State undercut the plea agreement at his Pierce County sentencing when the deputy prosecutor s tated that the global plea agreement “was made by her boss, however if it was up to her she would have [to] ask for a much longer sentence.” Pet. at 19. But the transcript of the sentencing hearing contains no such statement. Riggs does not demonstrate that the State undercut the plea agreement. We grant Riggs’s personal restraint petition in part and remand his Kitsap County judgment and sentence for correction. We deny the remainder of his petition. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

JOHANSON, J. We concur:

WORSWICK, J.

BJORGEN, C.J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7815

WAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus SARA E. FLANNERY, Administrative Agent; RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, Administrative Minister; YOUNGBLOOD, DEA Agent; WILLIAM B. ENGLAND, Drug Investigator; LARRY A. LOVELESS, Drug Task Force; RANDY BELYEN, U.S. Marshall; JOHN WALSH, DEA; LISA D. SOMER, DEA; ROBERT VALENTINE, DEA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-294-3) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 (2000) complaint, which the court properly construed as an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Flannery , No. CA-02-294-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Air Force

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

26%

45%

4%

25%

$0.3 $0.3 $0.3

$0.2

$0.3 $0.3

$0.2 $0.2

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

25%

4%

70%

1%

Construcon: 8%

Research and

 Development: 7%

Service: 57%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 27%

Acve Duty: 35%

Civilian: 14%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 51%

American Registry of Pathology

Caesar Rodney School District

Tesla Industries

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock

DIMO

Johnson Controls Federal Systems‐Versar, JV

Bering Straits Technical Services

Masley Enterprises

CACI

Kalia Charters

$15.6 M

$9.2 M

$8.6 M

$8.6 M

$8.1 M

$7.6 M

$7.1 M

$4.6 M

$3.5 M

$3.1 M

Kent

New Castle

Sussex

County

6,268

3,057

557

Total*

3,397

32

ND

Acve Duty

   Military

980

430

25

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

DELAWARE

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$392.2 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

9,899

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locaons

*Total also includes uniformed Naonal Guard and Reserve units.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

30 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Actve AF Guard Army Guard

DELAWAREDELAWAREDELAWARE DELAWARE

#46 #46 0.1% $598 #48 #46 #43

$0.6 B

SPENT IN STATE

0.8% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.2 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

9,899 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$0.4 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)(M=millions) (M=millions)

MARYLAND

Kent County

$86.9 M

New Castle County

$70.7 M

Sussex County

$17.2 M

Kent

New Castle

Sussex

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)(M=millions) (M=millions)

MARYLAND

Kent County

$295.6 M

New Castle County

$87.9 M

Sussex County

$7.7 M

Kent

New Castle

Sussex

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 31
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


LI2018302EN.01000301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | LI 302/3 |

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2016/2134 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 338 of 13 December 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_338_R_TOC)
)

On page 6, Article 1, point (2)(b), new point (i) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005:

for:

‘...

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | the supplier of technical assistance or the broker, in the case of supplies of technical assistance referred to in Article 7a or brokering services referred to in Article 7d;’.’, |

read:

‘...

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | the supplier of technical assistance or the broker, in the case of supplies of technical assistance referred to in Article 7a or brokering services referred to in Article 7e;’.’. |

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Restoney ROBINSON.

No. 129P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 19, 2006.

Restoney Robinson, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 12th day of April 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Rowan County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th day of April 2006."
# L_2012124EN.01005601.xml

| 11.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 124/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 124/56

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 392/2012 of 1 March 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household tumble driers

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 123 of 9 May 2012
  )

On page 3, in Article 8:

for:

‘
  29 May 2012
  ’

read:

‘
  29 May 2013
  ’

On page 3, in Article 9(1):

for:

‘
  29 September 2012
  ’

read:

‘
  29 September 2013
  ’

On page 3, in Article 9(2):

for:

‘
  29 May 2012
  ’

read:

‘
  29 May 2013
  ’

On page 3, in Article 9(3):

for:

‘
  29 May 2012
  ’

read:

‘
  29 May 2013
  ’

On page 3, Article 10(2) is replaced as follows:

for:

‘2.   It shall apply from 29 May 2012. However, Article 3(d) and (e) and Article 4(b), (c) and (d) shall apply from 29 September 2012.’

read:

‘2.   It shall apply from 29 May 2013. However, Article 3(d) and (e) and Article 4(b), (c) and (d) shall apply from 29 September 2013.’

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,310
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,995
<PP&E>                                         133,859
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (31,462)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          566,203
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        200
<COMMON>                                        90,941
<OTHER-SE>                                    (543,309)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,435
<SALES>                                        128,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,844
<CGS>                                           98,669
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,330,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               543,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             253,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,844,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,844,176)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 28,018
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,816,158)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.23)



</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Arthur O. ARMSTRONG.

No. 331P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Arthur O. Armstrong, Pro Se.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th day of June 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
# Commission Implementing Decision of 7 November 2013 adopting a fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the            Pannonian biogeographical region (notified under document C(2013) 7348) (2013/735/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 7 November 2013

# adopting a fifth updated list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region

# (notified under document C(2013) 7348)

# (2013/735/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/70 of 3 December 2014 adopting a sixth update of the list of sites of Community                                 importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region (notified under document C(2014) 9077).
Exhibit 32.2

TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the quarter ended February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Douglas E. Sloan, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report is in full compliances with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Douglas E. Sloan           
|Douglas E. Sloan               
|Interim Chief Financial Officer
|October 4, 2006
# Commission Implementing Decision of 11 December 2013 on measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the            Union of Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus), as regards South Africa (notified under document            C(2013) 8781) (2013/754/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 11 December 2013

# on measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of *Guignardia citricarpa* Kiely (all strains pathogenic to *Citrus*), as regards South Africa                     

# (notified under document C(2013) 8781)

# (2013/754/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by 2014/422/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 2 July 2014 setting out measures in respect of certain citrus fruits originating                                 in South Africa to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Phyllosticta citricarpa (McAlpine) Van                                 der Aa (notified under document C(2014) 4191).
Order filed July 9, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00354-CR

____________

ALVIS JACKSON III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 26th District Court

Williamson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-0839-K26

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed July 1, 2019. Our review has determined that a 

relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence 

rendered March 7, 2019.
The Williamson County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental 

clerk’s record on or before July 23, 2019, containing the Judgment of Conviction 

and Sentence rendered March 7, 2019.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM