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

CERTIFICATION 

I, Gregory A. Pitner, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-KSB of EarthBlock Technologies, Inc.; 

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this annual report; 

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisannual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 

4.     I amresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined 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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant is made known to us by others within the Corporation,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

            b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

            c)       disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     I havedisclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

            a)       all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

            b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALDEN BENJAMIN WHITE , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 844

[ July 13, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nine teenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Lawrence M. Mirman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562007CF004044B

.
Bryan D. Savy of Bross & Savy, PLLC, W est Melbourne

, for appellant

.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahass ee, and Jeanine Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , M AY and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Opinion issued February 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00288-CR

NO. 01-12-00289-CR

———————————

JOSE ANGEL HUERTA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1315496 and 1315497

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In each of trial court cause numbers 1315496 and 1315497, appellant, Jose 

Angel Huerta, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, 

pursuant to an agreed recommendation from the State as to punishment. In each 
2

cause number, the trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with

appellant’s plea agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to confinement for 

16 years, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant, proceeding pro se, 

filed a notice of appeal in each cause. We dismiss the appeals for want of 

jurisdiction.

In a plea-bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has 

not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

The clerk’s record filed in each appeal reflects that the trial court certified 

that the case below is a plea-bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record in each case supports the trial 

court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Further, in each case, the record does not include any pretrial written 

motions filed by the defense on which the trial court ruled adversely to the defense,

and appellant did not get the trial court’s permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2); Barcenas v. State, 137 S.W.3d 865, 866 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 
3

Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeals. See 

Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of 

appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who pleabargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited 

appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. All pending 

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James CLARK, Defendant/Appellant. James CLARK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 62061, 63542.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 26, 1993.

Henry B. Robertson, St. Louis, for defendant, appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff, respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*674ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, for one count of first-degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015.1, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court as a class X offender to life imprisonment on the first-degree robbery count, and thirty years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count. The terms are to run consecutively. He also appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12004]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; HDP User Group International, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 23, 1996, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), HDP User Group International, 
Inc., an Arizona non-profit corporation, filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing a change of membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Combitech, Jonkoping, SWEDEN; DSC 
Communications, Plano, TX; Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA; SGS 
Thompson, Milan, Italy; and Siemens AG, Regensburg, Germany have become 
members of the HDP User Group International, Inc.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of this joint venture.
    On September 14, 1994, the HDP User Group filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995 
(60 FR 15306-07). The last notification was filed on October 30, 1995. 
A notice was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1995 (60 
FR 65069).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12004 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### Wallace SPIVEY, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63451.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 26, 1993.

S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David B. Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Wallace Spivey, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. The judgment of conviction sought to be vacated was for capital murder for which movant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole for a minimum of fifty years.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 09, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 09, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16A0713. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SANTINO SMITH.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DEREK BLUFORD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-1529

D.C. No.

2:18-cr-00008-JAM-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Derek Bluford appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

AUG 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-1529

Bluford sought compassionate release on the basis of his serious medical 

conditions, the Bureau of Prisons’ alleged failure to provide adequate medical care, 

and his rehabilitative efforts. The district court concluded that (1) Bluford had 

failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances arising from his 

receipt of medical care, and (2) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not 

support relief given the amount of time remaining on Bluford’s sentence and the 

seriousness of his offenses. The district court did not abuse its discretion in 

reaching these conclusions, which are supported by the record. See United States 

v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its 

discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the 

record).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Accessory Specialists Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies 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 operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Anthony N. DeMint                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony N. DeMint                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | President and Chief Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                |
|   | March			13, 2006                                                                                                                                                      |
#### Arthur L. BANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 62084.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 2, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 20, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied May 25, 1993.

David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Spillane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and SMITH and STEPHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Arthur Banks, appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, the transcript and the legal file, and can find no error on the part of the motion court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Appellant’s appeal is, therefore, affirmed pursuant to rule 84.-16(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, solely for their own information, setting out the reasons for our decision.
#### Siegbert G. MUTHOFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 55951.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 6, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 11, 1990.

Lewis A. Hoffman, Dunedin, Fla., Douglas A. Walker, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals after the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion following an evidentiary hearing. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12581]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Network Management Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 5, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Network Management Forum 
(``the Forum'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions 
to its membership. The additional notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the identities of the new members to the venture are as 
follows: CSC Intelicom, Inc., Rochester, NY; General Instrument 
Corporation, Hatboro, PA; and Motorola, Arlington Heights, IL are 
Corporate Members. AU-Systems, Stockholm, SWEDEN; Marben Products, 
Inc., San Jose, CA; Open Networks Engineering, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI; 
Securicor Wireless Networks, Inc., Redmond, WA; Telecom Solutions, San 
Jose, CA; Tertio Limited, London, ENGLAND; and X-CEL Communications 
Limited, Camberley, Surrey, ENGLAND are Associate Members. Air Force C4 
Agency, Scott AFB, IL; Cintel, Santafe de Bogota, D.C., COLUMBIA; and 
Exallon Systems, Malmo, SWEDEN are affiliate Members.
    No other changes have been made since the last notification filed 
with the Department, in either the membership or planned activity of 
the group research project. Membership in this group research project 
remains open, and the Forum intends to file additional written 
notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 21, 1988, the Form filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on December 8, 1988 (53 Fed. Reg. 49615).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 30, 
1995. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on February 12, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 5409).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12581 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Future Carz, Inc.. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M. David Fesko,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies 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.


By: /s/ M. David Fesko                                            April 2, 2004
   ---------------------------------------
   M. David Fesko
   Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer,
   Director and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13038]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1105-DR]


Montana; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Montana (FEMA-1105-DR), dated February 23, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and 
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective February 29, 1996.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Dennis H. Kwiatkowski,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-13038 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P