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








CERTIFICATE
      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 Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of
      Mortlock Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended September 30,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, Michael Laidlaw, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify,
      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
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
      15
      (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date:
      November 13, 2007





MICHAEL
      LAIDLAW


Michael
      Laidlaw


Chief
      Executive Officer,


President
      and Director











-1-
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL S OF TEXAS

N O

. P D

- 0 1 5 5

- 1 5

G I N N I E F A Y R O B E R T S , A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E T E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

J O H N S O N C O U N T Y

P E R C U R IA M
. K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y , J J

. , d i s s e n t

.

O R D E R

T h e p e t i t i o n f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w v i o l a t e s R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 6 8

. 4 ( j ) ,
b e c a u s e i t d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a c o p y o f t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

.

T h e p e t i t i o n i s s t r u c k

. S e e R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 6 8

. 6

.

T h e p e t i t i o n e r m a y r e d r a w t h e p e t i t i o n

. T h e r e d r a w n p e t i t i o n a n d c o p i e s m u s t b e

f i l e d i n t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r

.

F i l e d : J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 D o N o t P u b l i s h
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0703

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KEITH POPE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 24, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2024

04/18/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0703
----

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  Bill H. Gunn                                 |   |
| Bill H. Gunn                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Principal Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| September 14, 2011                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-41005 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENDRICK DEROY ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:94-CR-1-1

- - - - - - - - - - July 26, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In this direct criminal appeal, Kendrick Deroy Allen argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. Allen also argues that his statement was involuntarily obtained under coercive conditions and after he had invoked the right to counsel. We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the opinion of the districtNo. 95-41005 -2- court, and the briefs, and find that the denial of the motion to suppress should be affirmed substantially for the reasons adopted by the district court. See United States v. Kendrick , No. 94-CR1-1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7436

ERIC PAYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LORETTA KELLY, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-195-7) Submitted: January 16, 2002 Decided: February 4, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Eric Payne appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Payne v. Kelly , No. CA-01-195-7 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
13S-/5

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 12-13-00050-CR OFFENSE: 21.04

STYLE: CesarGomez v.The State ofTexas COUNTY: Smith

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 241st District Court

DATE: 01/21/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 241-0529-12

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Cesar Gomez v. The State of Texas

PRO SE. Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: 3Vn<2 ^7 2.0;^

JUDGE: /^

CCA#: 133-IS

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
<Page>


                                                                EXHIBIT 10.3(h))




          PriceSmart, Inc.                                        [Memorandum]
          4649 Morena Blvd.
          San Diego, CA  92117
          Tel 858 581-7485
          Fax 858 581-4707


PriceSmart [Logo]


          To:     Bob Gans

          From:   Gil Partida       /s/ GP

          Re:     SALARY INCREASE

          Date:   October 16, 2001




          With reference to your Employment Agreement, this Memorandum will
          confirm that effective September 1, 2001, your annual base salary
          increased by $20,000, to $200,000.
@misc{1151456,
  author = {Joseph J DeBartolo},
  title = {Study to identify industries positioned for significant impact on U.S. metrication:},
  year = {1995},
  month = {1995-05-01 04:05:00},
  publisher = {, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.96-868},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,303,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,377,666
<PP&E>                                          93,317
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,836,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          923,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        149
<COMMON>                                        76,598
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,835,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,836,061
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,883,082)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (18,519)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,901,601)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,901,601)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,901,601)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       Consent of Independent Accountants'




The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Base Ten Systems, Inc.
Trenton, New Jersey 08619

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements of Base Ten Systems,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (Registration
Nos. 33-89712, 33-60454, 33-55752, 333-00721,  333-21925,  333-59881, 333-59883,
333-59885 and Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-84451), and in the
Registration  Statements of Base Ten Systems,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-3
(Registration  Nos.  33-89710,  333-00719,   333-06317,   333-21923,  333-31335,
333-34159,  333-46095 and 333-70535),  of our report dated April 12, 1999 on our
audits of the consolidated  financial  statements of Base Ten Systems,  Inc. and
its  Subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  1998 and 1997,  and for the year  ended
December 31, 1998 and the  two-months  ended December 31, 1997,  which report is
included in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Florham Park, New Jersey
April 28, 1999
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 21, 2015

Order 

July 21, 2015

Rehearing No. 607

149940(43)

LORI L. STONE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

MICHIGAN STATE POLICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 149940

COA: 314848

Ct of Claims: 10-000033-MZ

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1837

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll

Plaintiff - Appellee
v. Kamaury Taujheim Watson lllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________ Submitted: March 9, 2020 Filed: May 8, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Kamaury Taujheim Watson pled guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (9), subject to penalties outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2).The district court 1 sentenced him to 45 months of imprisonment, followed by 3 years

of supervised release. Watson challenges his sentence. According to Watson, the district court misapplied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”), resulting in an improper sentencing enhancement. We disagree. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the Guidelines increases a defendant’s offense level by four points if he “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). And Watson possessed a gun “in connection with” a contemporaneous violation of Iowa Code section 724.4(1). Under United States v. Walker , violating Iowa Code section 724.4(1) counts as “another felony offense” for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). 771 F.3d 449, 452–53 (8th Cir. 2014). Watson contends Walker

was wrongly decided. However, Walker is binding precedent and one panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel. Mader v. United States , 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We therefore affirm his sentence.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
#### In the Matter of Andie M. and Another, Infants. Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Kimberly M. et al., Appellants.

Submitted January 28, 2013;

decided February 19, 2013

Motions for leave to appeal denied. Motion by Kimberly M. for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
The State of /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2015

No. 04-15-00183-CR

Richard LARES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR10110

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief; Appellant’s pro se brief was 

due on July 16, 2015. We granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file his pro se 

brief until July 21, 2015. On July 15, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se motion for a thirty-day 

extension of time to file his pro se brief, for a total extension of thirty-five days.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant must file his pro se brief with this court by 

August 20, 2015. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENT OF BANTA CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS  ENDED  JANUARY 1, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                         1,300
<SECURITIES>                                   26,351
<RECEIVABLES>                                  222,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,927
<INVENTORY>                                    86,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               355,861
<PP&E>                                         811,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 484,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 773,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          245,353
<BONDS>                                        113,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,583
<OTHER-SE>                                     351,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   773,344
<SALES>                                        1,278,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,278,278
<CGS>                                          1,011,916
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,011,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               217,992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                34,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                   18,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            16,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   16,010
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.59<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.59

<FN>
<F1>  THE EPS UNDER THE "EPS - PRIMARY" TAG REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### Trump Securities, LLC, et al., Respondents, v Purolite Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Submitted July 15, 2013;

decided September 17, 2013

Motion for reargument granted and, upon reargument, motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 21*NY3d 987 (2013)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
NO. 12-15-00148-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GUY GRANTHAM, 

APPELLANT

V.

RACEFAB, INC.,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed because Appellant has failed, after notice, to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the trial court clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The trial court’s 

judgment was signed on May 4, 2015, and Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s 

record was due on July 3, 2015. On July 2, 2015, the trial court clerk filed a motion for 

extension of time to file the clerk’s record. In the motion, the clerk stated that the reason for the 

delay in filing was that Appellant had not made a claim of indigence and had failed to either pay 

or make arrangements to pay for the preparing of the clerk’s record. On that same date, this 

court informed Appellant that, pursuant to rules of appellate procedure 37.3(b) and 42.3(c), the 

appeal would be dismissed unless proof of full payment to the clerk was provided on or before 

July 13, 2015.

The deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither provided proof of full payment 

for the clerk’s record nor otherwise responded to this court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(c). 

Opinion delivered July 15, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 15, 2015

NO. 12-15-00148-CV

GUY GRANTHAM,

Appellant

V.

RACEFAB, INC.,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV9131)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### Kevin Glassman, Respondent, v ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Center, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Decided October 25, 2012

Appeals dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that they do not lie. The terms of this Court’s remittitur were not violated and an appeal therefore does not lie as of right.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14992]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60


Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (Sec.  60.1 
to end of part 60 sections), revised as of July 1, 2008, on page 637, 
in Sec.  60.664, the equation in paragraph (f)(1) introductory text is 
corrected to read as follows:


Sec.  60.664  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TC16NO91.104
    
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-14992 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D