alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERI, ROBERT L. MILLER, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CVF Technologies Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of materialfact or 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 the periodcovered by this Annual Report.3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultof operation and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisAnnual Report.4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisAnnual 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 Annual Report basedon such evaluation.     c) disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function);     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Dated: April 13, 2007      CVF TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION        /s/  Robert L. Miller   ROBERT L. MILLER   Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920231
<NAME> TRANSACTION NETWORK SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,579
<SECURITIES>                                     5,809
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                       618
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,850
<PP&E>                                          42,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,857
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,643
<SALES>                                         38,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,510
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,395
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,204
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,746
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.29
        

</TABLE>
No. 87-1296.

#### In re Exxon Corp. et al.; and In re Spradley.

No. 87-6359.

Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Sept. 2Published Sept. 2, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- On this look around the Air Force, the KC-135 Stratotanker celebrates 60 years of service, a new KC-46A Pegasus training center opens its doors, and a preview of this month's Airman magazine is available. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller. 
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- The KC-135: 60 years of excellence
- Forging the KC-46: New training center opens to prepare tanker aircrews 
- September edition of Airman MagazineKC-135 



anniversary 



KC-46 



Altus AFB 



Oklahoma 



ATAF
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1260 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1260

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, as the ``Claude Ramsey Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CLAUDE RAMSEY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Claude Ramsey Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Claude 
Ramsey Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1260

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, as the ``Claude Ramsey Post 
                               Office''.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          20,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      16,620,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,640,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,166
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,623,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,640,628
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (399,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (399,709)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Cite as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 131 Ohio St.3d 54, 2012-Ohio-28.] 

THE STATE EX REL. HOUGH, APPELLANT, v. SAFFOLD, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 131 Ohio St.3d 54, 2012-Ohio-28.] 

Mandamus—Procedendo—Court has no duty to issue final, appealable order on 

denial of motion for recusal—Court has no duty to issue findings of fact 

and conclusions of law in denying untimely successive petition for 

postconviction relief—Writs denied.

(No. 2011-1430—Submitted January 3, 2012—Decided January 10, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 

No. 96468, 2011-Ohio-3477. 

__________________ 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claims 

of appellant, Terrance Hough, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel 

appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland 

Saffold, to issue final, appealable orders on her October 7, 2010 denial of 

Hough’s motion for the judge to recuse herself and his motion to supplement his 

petition for postconviction relief. 

{¶ 2} Hough is not entitled to a final, appealable order on the judge’s 

denial of his motion to recuse herself, because a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction 

to review these decisions. See Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-

442, 8 O.O.3d 438, 377 N.E.2d 775 (“Since only the Chief Justice or [the chief’s] 

designee may hear disqualification matters, the Court of Appeals was without 

authority to pass upon disqualification or to void the judgment of the trial court 

upon that basis”); Goddard v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (2000), 141 Ohio 

App.3d 467, 473, 751 N.E.2d 1062; State v. Ramos (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 394, 

398, 623 N.E.2d 1336. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 3} Moreover, as Judge Saffold now contends, the chief justice has 

since granted Hough’s affidavit to disqualify her, so his claim is now moot. 

{¶ 4} Finally, contrary to Hough’s assertions, Judge Saffold had no duty 

to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying Hough’s motion to 

supplement his previously denied, untimely, successive petition for 

postconviction relief. See State ex rel. James v. Coyne, 114 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007-

Ohio-2716, 867 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 5 (court has no duty to issue findings of fact and 

conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely petition for postconviction 

relief); see also State v. Jones, Mahoning App. No. 07 MA 81, 2008-Ohio-1536, 

2008 WL 852245, ¶ 16-18 (amended petition for postconviction relief filed after 

court had ruled on petition held to be an improper successive petition). 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Terrance Hough, pro se. 

 William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 

Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

______________________
#### Geo. R. Summerhill, Adm’r, etc., v. M. Ella McAlexander, Adm’x, etc.

(No. 1425, Op. Book No. 3, p. 466.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 584. *Abatement; plea in, that plaintiff, as administratrix of an estate in another state, could not maintain suit in this state.*This suit is brought by appellee, as administratrix of the estate of Edmond McAlexander, deceased, against appellant, as administrator of the estate of Wm. H. Summerhill, deceased, to recover the amount of a judgment rendered in the circuit court of Lauderdale county, state of Alabama, in favor of appellee’s intestate, and against appellant’s intestate, for the sum of $713.83. Appellant pleaded in abatement that the plaintiff in the suit had no legal right to maintain the suit in the capacity of administratrix; that she had not been appointed as such by any court of this state, but that she was attempting to maintain the suit under an appointment as such administratrix, made by a court in the state of Alabama. This plea was properly sworn to as required by the statute. [E. S. 1265.] Upon a hearing of the plea, the court found against it, holding that the plaintiff could maintain the suit in the capacity in which she sued, under and by virtue of her appointment as administratrix, made by a court in the state of Alabama. In thus holding the court erred. It is well settled in this state that a suit cannot be maintained in the courts of this state, by virtue of letters of administration issued from a court of a sister state, upon a debt belonging to the estate of the decedent, where the title to such debt has not been directly invested into the administrator, as where it is made payable to him, or where judgment has been previously recovered thereon in his name. [Cobb v. Norwood, 11 Tex. 556; Cheney v. Speight, 28 Tex. 503; Davis v. Phillips, 32 Tex. 564; Simpson v. Foster, 46 Tex. 618; Terrell v. Crane, 55 Tex. 81.]

*309November 4, 1882.

§ 585. *Judgment luithout citation is void.*There is another matter fatal to the plaintiff’s suit. The transcript of the proceedings and judgment in the circuit court of Lauderdale county, Alabama, and which forms the basis of this suit, discloses the fact that the judgment in that suit was rendered against Wm. H. Summerhill without legal notice or citation. A citation or summons was issued to be served upon him, but it was returned by the sheriff that he was not found. The judgment having been obtained against him without notice, is void, and cannot be made the basis of a recovery. [Witt v. Kaufman, 25 Tex. Sup. 384.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. Marion Johnson et al.

(No. 5144.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Leake & Henry, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 275. *Petition in suit for damages for negligence in construction of railway, held insufficient on special exception; case stated.*Appellees sued appellant to recover damages for flooding and destroying their crops, alleging that said flooding and destruction was caused by the negligent and careless construction and maintenance of its railroad. They recovered judgment for $224 and costs. In their petition appellees allege that appellant “so negligently and carelessly kept, constructed and maintained its said line of said railroad that it caused the water to collect and back over, and inundate and overflow ” said crops and destroy the same. Appellant excepted specially to this portion of the petition because it did not show wherein said railroad was defectively or negligently constructed. This exception was overruled. *Held*error. Appellees should have stated their cause of action by distinct averments and with such particularity as to be reasonably sufficient to inform appellant of the acts or omissions relied upon as constituting the negligence complained of. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 447; R’y Co. v. Bayless, 62 Tex. 570.] While the allegations as to negligence would be held sufficient upon general demurrer, they are not sufficient when specially excepted to.

*335April 30, 1887.

§ 276. *Measure of damages; petition should allege facts which constitute.*In this case the proper measure of damages would be the market value of the crops injured or destroyed at the time of such injury or destruction. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 298,482; R’y Co. v. Joachimi, 58 Tex. 456; R’y Co. v. Young, 60 Tex. 201; R’y Co. v. Bayless, 62 Tex. 570.] It was therefore essential to allege in the petition such market value, and there being no such allegation the petition was insufficient and the general demurrer thereto should have been sustained. [R’y Co. v. Bayless, 62 Tex. 570.]

Reversed and remanded.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134485 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134485 COA: 273987 Oakland CC: 2005-201107-FH MORRIS EUGE NE FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
583 A.2d 338

#### KENNETH CAMPBELL v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



Each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro Financial Corporation
(the Company), that to his knowledge:



(1) The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (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.



This written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                   |  |  |  |                        |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.
|                   |  |  |  |                        |  |  |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                   |  |  |  |                        |  |  |  | President and Director               
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | s/ Edward Escudero    
|                   |  |  |  |                        |  |  |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                   |  |  |  |                        |  |  |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Kishia Ann Marie Holland

, * From the 39th District Court

of Haskell County,

Trial Court No. 7092

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 2 74

- CR * November 16 , 20 2 3

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
To:   William Campbell, Chief Financial Officer & Chief Operating Officer
      Gary Goodell, Director
      E-CONTENT INC.

From: Peter Keefe



A gracious good day to you, Billy.

This Deal Memorandum will memorialize the assignment by Peter Keefe ("PK") to
E-Content ("Company") of all rights which PK holds, and has
held previous to his employment with the Company, in the properties currently
known as Z~Force ("ZF"), Nine Dog Christmas ("NDC") and Nine Dog Night of Fright
("NDNOF"). These property rights are being assigned to the Company by PK in
exchange for Company restricted stock.

In the case of ZF, where PK controls the global Management, Administration,
TV & Home Video/DVD, Merchandise Licensing and Distribution rights to the
property (collectively termed "rights"), PK hereby assigns those rights to the
Company in exchange for 1,000,000 shares.

In addition, in the case of ZF, where PK owns all a profit participation
position of 45% in the property, PK hereby assigns that 45% ownership/profit
participation to the Company in exchange for 8,000,000 shares.

In the case of NDC and NDNOF where PK controls the US television distribution
rights to the properties, PK hereby assigns those rights to the Company.

In addition, in the case of NDC where PK owns a gross revenue participation in
the Merchandise Licensing and Home Video/DVD sales categories and a profit
participation position; and in the case of NDNOF property where PK owns a gross
revenue participation in the Merchandise Licensing and Home Video/DVD sales
categories (collectively termed "rights"), PK hereby assigns those rights to the
Company in exchange for 1,000,000 shares.

In lieu of a straight stock exchange for these rights, PK has the option to
elect to receive a combination of shares and warrants that approximate the same
value of the ten million shares provided for in this Agreement, that valuation
calculation being based on the same share price as of the date of this 12/01/03
Agreement.
<PAGE>


Peter Keefe/E-Content
Property Rights Assignment Agreement
As of December 1st, 2003    page 2



Any Company stock shares exchanged for these property rights are restricted
shares with a minimal one year holding period.

These shares will be held in trust by the E-Content corporate attorney, Randall
Henley Esq., until the Company completes a fairness review and thorough
valuation appraisal of this transaction.

It is the intention of both PK and the Company to memorialize this Deal
Memorandum Agreement in a more detailed fashion, but until such a time may
occur, this Memorandum forms a binding and fully enforceable legal contract
between PK and the Company.



accepted and agreed                    accepted and agreed
as of December 1st, 2003:              as of December 1st, 2003:

                                       /s/
--------------------------             -------------------------------
William Campbell                        Peter Keefe
E-Content



------------------
Gary Goodell
E-Content