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


                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 filing of Tech  Electro  Industries,  Inc. and
Subsidiaries  (the  "Company")  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB for the period
ending  September 30, 2002 with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Julie  Sansom-Reese,  Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as adopted pursuant
to (SS) 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 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/ Julie Sansom-Reese
----------------------
Julie Sansom-Reese
Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2002






























                                       24
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 51 SSM 2

In the Matter of Norman Woods 

et al.,

 Respondents,

 v.

State University of New York 

et al.,

 Appellants.

Submitted by Julie M. Sheridan, for appellants.

Submitted by Thomas D. Latin, for respondents.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,

order reversed, without costs, for the reasons stated in the

dissenting memorandum of Justice Robert Rose (139 AD3d 1322,

1325), and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Third

Department, for consideration of issues raised but not determined

on the appeal to that court. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur. Judge

Wilson took no part.

Decided February 14, 2017
#### Marks *v.*Corn and others.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

October 19, 1881.)

Patents — Pbeeiminart Injunction.

Where the question of infringement is so doubtful as to make it improper to grant an injunction except as the result of a final hearing, a preliminary injunction will be refused.

C. *W. Betts,*for plaintiff.

*G. M. Plympton,*for defendant.

Blatchford, C. J.

Understanding the subject-matter of the motion for an injunction herein to be whether a cap constructed substantially like the cap annexed to the affidavit of Samuel Corn, sworn to October 6, 1881, infringes reissue No. 7,808, Division B, I am of opinion that the question of infringement is so doubtful as to make it improper to grant an injunction except as the result of a final hearing in the case. The cap in question, whether made so that the upper edge of the part which may be called the protector swings below the lower edge of what may be called the body of the cap, or whether made so that such upper edge does not swing below the lower edge of such body, seems to be unlike in structure to the cap of the patent, and unlike in structure to any of the caps held to be infringements in the suit against Box and in the suit against Schwartz. The same ultimate results may be accomplished in protecting the ears and the neck, when desired, and in removing the protector up and down, when desired, and in having a finished appearance in the cap when the protector is up, but the claims of the patent are for the means of effecting such results. It would seem that the defendant’s cap has no upper edge of a protector, in the sense of the patent, and no separate protector attached to the cap by a tape or cloth, as in the patent. The second claim, equally with the other two claims, must be construed as applying only to such a separate protector as the patent shows.

The motion is denied.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 111 

Designating March 2015 as ‘‘National Middle Level Education Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2015 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mrs. MURRAY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating March 2015 as ‘‘National Middle Level 

Education Month’’. 

Whereas the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Association for Middle Level Education, the 

National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, 

and the National Association of Elementary School Principals have declared March 2015 as ‘‘National Middle 

Level Education Month’’; 

Whereas schools that educate middle level students are responsible for educating nearly 24,000,000 young adolescents between the ages of 10 and 15, in grades 5 through 

9, who are undergoing rapid and dramatic changes in 

their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, and moral 

development; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 111 IS 

Whereas young adolescents deserve challenging and engaging 

instruction and knowledgeable teachers and administrators who are prepared to provide young adolescents with 

a safe, challenging, and supportive learning environment; 

Whereas young adolescents deserve organizational structures 

that banish anonymity and promote personalization, collaboration, and social equity; 

Whereas the habits and values established during early adolescence have a lifelong influence that directly affects the 

future health and welfare of the United States; 

Whereas research indicates that the academic achievement of 

a student in grade 8 has a larger impact on the readiness 

of that student for an institution of higher education at 

the end of high school than any academic achievement of 

that student in high school; and 

Whereas in order to improve graduation rates and prepare 

students to be lifelong learners who are ready for an institution of higher education or a career and civic participation, the people of the United States must have a deeper understanding of the distinctive mission of middle level 

education: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates March 2015 as ‘‘National Middle 

3 Level Education Month’’; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes the importance of 

5 middle level education and the contributions of the 

6 individuals who educate middle level students; and 

7 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

8 to observe National Middle Level Education Month 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 111 IS 

1 by visiting and celebrating schools that are respon2 sible for educating young adolescents in the United 

3 States. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Vanessa F. WALKER; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Respondents.

No. 07-1604.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 17, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 22, 2008.

Benjamin M. Mason, Mason, Mason, Walker & Hedrick, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory E. Camden, Charlene A. Morring, Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Barry H. Joyner, Mark A. Reinhalter, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of attorney fees pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 928 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. *Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Walker,*No. 06-0711 (B.R.B. Apr. 26, 2007). 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.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

s1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

145710 & (30)

WILLIAM MOORE, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145710

COA: 308850

PUGSLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2012 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. The motion to add a party 

is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    /s/ KENNETH D. TUCHMANKenneth D. TuchmanChairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Emmett BARKLEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sergeant PIERCE; Correctional Officer Shank; Dan Devaroe, Correctional Officer II, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-7316.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Emmett Barkley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emmett Barkley appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Barkley v. Pierce,*No. 1:07-cv01974-JFM (D.Md., Aug. 21, 2007). We further deny as moot Barkley’s motion for expedited adjudication of this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately *527presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of Meeting 
Cancellation

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act that the meeting of the Advisory Committee on 
Former Prisoners of War, previously scheduled to be held at the Westin 
Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30303, on 
September 13-15, 2017, has been cancelled.
    For more information, please contact Leslie N. Williams, Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, Benefits Assistance Service, at (202) 530-9219 or via 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bef2dbcdd2d7db90e9d7d2d2d7dfd3cd8ffec8df90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c18da4b2ada8a4ef96a8adada8a0acb2f081b7a0efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 11, 2017.
Jelessa M. Burney,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-19502 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Rosario PEREZ, a.k.a. Rosario Perez, a.k.a. Elio Almendarez-Munguia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-12237

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 15, 2008.

Charles L. Truncale, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles L. Truncale, Esq., appointed counsel for Juan Rosario Perez, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Perez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 23, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00997-CR 

DEREK PAUL RAY SR., Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F96-51596-I 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Goldstein, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

Derek Paul Ray Sr. appeals his conviction for injury to a child. On November 

15, 2021, appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal with this Court, stating he was 

appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc on back 

time credit. We dismiss this appeal. 

An appellate court has jurisdiction to determine an appeal only if the appeal 

is authorized by law. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696‒97 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008). When the appellate court’s jurisdiction is not legally invoked, the court’s 

power to act is as absent as if it did not exist. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellate courts may consider criminal appeals only after 
 –2– 

final conviction or the entry of a narrow set of appealable interlocutory orders. TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1998, no pet.). 

Here, appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

judgment nunc pro tunc on back time credit. However, the denial of a nunc pro tunc 

on back-time credit is not appealable. See Abbott, 271 S.W.3d at 697 (“In this case, 

we have not found any rule or any statutory or constitutional provision that would 

authorize appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s post-judgment order denying his 

time-credit motion.”). Because there is no rule or statutory or constitutional 

provision allowing such an appeal, we conclude we lack jurisdiction. See id. 

We dismiss this appeal. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

210997F.U05 

 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DEREK PAUL RAY SR., Appellant 

No. 05-21-00997-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F96-51596-I. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. 

Justices Pedersen, III and Goldstein 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered November 23, 2021
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





I, Peter M. Carlino, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc.;





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;





4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’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





(d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over 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 has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:May 4, 2018/s/ Peter M. CarlinoName: Peter M. CarlinoChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                                        -------------------       -----------------
                                                           September 30,             September 30,
                                                           -------------             -------------
                                                          2000         1999       2000         1999
                                                          ----         ----       ----         ----
DETERMINATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
-------------------------------------
 FIXED CHARGES:
 --------------
<S>                                                     <C>          <C>        <C>          <C>
Loss before benefit for income taxes                    ($ 2,233)   ($ 2,090)   ($ 4,911)   ($ 3,153)

Fixed charges

             Amortization of deferred financing costs        337         298       1,010         892
             Interest expense                              5,174       4,569      15,396      13,148
                                                         -------     -------     -------     -------
Earnings before fixed charges                              3,278       2,777      11,495      10,887

Fixed charges
             Amortization of deferred financing costs        337         298       1,010         892
             Interest expense                              5,174       4,569      15,396      13,148
                                                         -------     -------     -------     -------
Total fixed charges                                        5,511       4,867      16,406      14,040

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          0.59X       0.57X       0.70X       0.78X
                                                         =======     =======     =======     =======
</TABLE>

                                                                              15
Exhibit 35.1



LOGO

1123-Servicer Compliance Statement

Transactions Listed With SEC

I, Shawn
Kormanek, Senior Vice President ofCitiMortgage, Inc., certify that:

(a) A review ofCitiMortgage, Inc. (the Servicer) activities during the 12
month period ending December 31, 2018 (Reporting Period) and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement as identified on Schedule A has been made under my supervision.

(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



LOGO



---

Schedule A

Transactions Listed with SEC 2018



|                                |  |                                        |  |                                       |  |                                   |  |                                                 |  |                                             |  |                                                                         
|------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|CitiMortgage
Bond
Administrator |  | CRLI Primary
Servicing (Investor
Code) |  | CMI Primary
Servicing (Investor
Code) |  | CMI-MasterServicing(InvestorCode) |  | CMI PrimaryBonds(Bond # or
GSE InvestorBlock #) |  | Security or Deal                            |  | Party the Servicer IsReporting
To(Master Servicer orTrustee or Investor)
|                                |  |                                        |  |                                       |  | 7800                              |  |                                                 |  | SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST 20138 (SEMT 20138) |  | W ILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION