alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2I, Paul G. Vanderhoven, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing 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 (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(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 financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 10, 2006   /s/ PAUL G. VANDERHOVEN   Paul G. Vanderhoven  Senior Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130881 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: 130881 

 COA: 264217 

Wayne CC: 92-012971

DION HASTIE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 16, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1120 

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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                  DRAFT 4/6/98

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated April [], 1998, effective
March 1, 1998, is by and between GTECH Holdings Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation; GTECH Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and William Y.
O'Connor.

WHEREAS, the parties are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement dated September 19, 1997 (the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, in light of Mr. O'Connor's ascension to the Chairmanship of the Boards
of Directors of both GTECH Corporation and GTECH Holdings Corporation and the
increased responsibilities in connection therewith, the parties now desire to
amend the Agreement to reflect certain changes in the terms and provisions
thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants
herein contained, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows:

1. Section 5(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by substituting "$600,000"
for "$550,000" in the third line thereof.

3. Section 5(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended by substituting "six times
Executive's Base Salary" for "four times Executive's Base Salary" in both the
third and seventh lines thereof.

3. In all other respects, the Agreement remains unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GTECH Holdings Corporation and GTECH Corporation have caused
this First Amendment to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers
or directors, and William Y. O'Connor has executed this First Amendment, all as
of the day and year first written above.

GTECH Holdings Corporation                  Attest



by______________________                    by____________________
Name:                                       Name:
Title:                                      Title:


                                     103
<PAGE>   2
GTECH Corporation                           Attest



by______________________                    by____________________
Name:                                       Name:
Title:                                      Title:



                                            Witness



------------------------                    ----------------------
William Y. O'Connor


                                     104
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0606

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CORY MICHAEL KELLY,

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 August 24, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 18 2022

07/18/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0606
#### David LIM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74594.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*967Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

The Law Offices of Kurt Miller, Morgan Hill, CA, for Petitioner.

CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, *967Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

David Lim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for adjustment of status and his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. *Gonzalez v. INS,*82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.1996). We review due process claims de novo. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the IJ’s denial of Lim’s request for a continuance. *See Gonzalez,*82 F.3d at 908. The proceedings had already been continued numerous times and Lim had ample opportunity to submit an application for relief from removal prior to July 28, 2004.

Lim’s due process contentions are unavailing because he failed to show prejudice. *See Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 899-900.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,342,287
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,165,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,431,764
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,565,956
<PP&E>                                       3,508,221
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,215,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,491,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,323,655
<BONDS>                                      3,040,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,698,938
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,768,986
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,519,990)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,491,701
<SALES>                                      1,483,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,440,926
<CGS>                                          546,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,559,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,418,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,046,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   209,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,103,690
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   837,040
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00803

- CR

Pedro JIMENEZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR13315 Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 4, 2020
APPEAL DISMISSED Appellant Pedro Jimenez entered into a plea bargain with the State pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm as a repeat offender. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and the district clerk filed a copy of the clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s R ule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement. See id. R. 25.2(d).“ In a plea barga in case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” I d. R. 25.2(a). We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id

. R. 25.2(d). Here, the clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court doe s not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. R. 25.2(a)(2). The record also supports the trial court’s certification that appellant does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). On January 7, 2020, we gave appellant notice that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant
to R ule 25.2( d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that ap pellant has the right to appeal wa s made part of the appellate record by February 6, 2020.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex . App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits , No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Neither an amended certification nor other response has been filed. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
     <PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               1,376
<SECURITIES>                                         3,359
<RECEIVABLES>                                       12,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2,368
<INVENTORY>                                         13,829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    35,037
<PP&E>                                               9,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      45,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               13,256
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               100
<OTHER-SE>                                          41,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        45,651
<SALES>                                             43,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    43,179
<CGS>                                               29,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       24,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (10,416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (495)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (9,921)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (9,921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.96)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-84-000]


PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On September 8, 2017, an order was issued in Docket No. EL17-84-
000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 
824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and 
reasonableness of Hudson Transmission Partners, L.L.C. (HTP) being 
unable to convert its Firm Transmission Withdrawal Rights to Non-Firm 
Transmission Withdrawal Rights.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 160 FERC 61,056 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-84-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-84-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as 
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: September 8, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19725 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) ofTriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Harold F. Zagunis, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of myknowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
#### Tiran Latrayer BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William WILLIAMS; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland; James S. Smith, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 08-6251.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 10, 2008.

Decided: June 27, 2008.

Tiran Latrayer Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E.O. Connor, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tiran Latrayer Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). Except as provided in Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6), neither this court nor the district court may extend the time to note an appeal more than sixty days after the judgment was entered. *Ali v. Lyles,*769 F.2d 204, 205 (4th Cir.1985). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of*Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 29, 2007. The *283notice of appeal was filed on February 3, 2008.* Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). We deny Brown's request to treat his motion for an extension of time to "research [his] next move” as a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc, because the motion did not indicate Brown’s intent to seek appellate review. *See Smith v. Barry,*502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).
|                                 | Gries
    & Associates, LLC
|-------------------------------- | ---------------------------
|Certified Public Accountants    
|501 S. Cherry Street, Suite 1100
|Denver, Colorado 80246          








Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The balance sheet as of April 30, 2022, and the statements of operations,
stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended April 30, 2022, of Black Rock Petroleum Company (the “financial statements”),
included in Part IV of the form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2022, have been audited by Gries & Associates, LLC, independent
auditors registered with the PCAOB, as stated in our report appearing herein.







Denver, Colorado

PCAOB Firm #6778

February 27, 2023








blaze@griesandassociates.com

501 S. Cherry Street, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado
80246

(O)720-464-2875 (M)773-255-5631 (F)720-222-5846
(logo) LNR

          Partners, LLC

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

**OF**

** **

**LNR PARTNERS, LLC**

** **

** **

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), asspecial servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement, herebycertifies, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely inhis capacity as an officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individualcapacity, as follows:

 

1. I have reviewed theactivities performed by the Special Servicer under the applicable Pooling andServicing Agreement during the period commencing on January 1, 2016 and endingon December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"), and the SpecialServicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been madeunder my supervision;

 

2. To the best of my knowledge,based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled its obligations underthe applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period

 

 

LNR Partners, LLC, 

A Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 22, 2017

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue ∙Suite700 ∙ Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ∙Fax: (305)695-5601