alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizandro Bravo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-5485

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 30, 1979.

L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

J. A. Canales, U. S. Atty., John M. Potter, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., Robert A. Berg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Corpus Christi, Tex., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Garcia was stopped at the Sari-ta, Texas border checkpoint by a border patrol agent. While questioning Garcia about his citizenship, the agent thought he smelled marijuana. The agent asked Garcia to open the trunk of the car and found marijuana inside it.

Garcia argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the marijuana as illegally seized evidence. Garcia concedes that Sarita is the functional equivalent of a border, as held in *United States v. Reyna,*572 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1978). *See Moreno v. United States,*579 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1978), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 1217, 59 L.Ed.2d 456 (1979). However, Garcia contends that a border search can be justified only on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity. He argues that the border agent did not have a reasonable suspicion when he *260opened Garcia’s car door and projected his body “halfway into the car” to question Garcia.

However, we read the cases in this circuit to say that probable cause, or even reasonable or articulable suspicion is not necessary at the functional equivalent of a border for the agent to conduct the preliminary search of leaning into a car. *United States v. Moreno, supra, United States v. Chaplinski,*579 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1978), *United States v. Ivey,*546 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977). If reasonable suspicion was necessary for the more intrusive search of the trunk, it was supplied by the smell of the marijuana. *United States v. Arrasmith,*557 F.2d 1093, 1094 (5th Cir. 1977).

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
SOUTHERN GRAND DIVISION.

JUNE TERM, 1876.

#### Alexander McClelland *et al. v.*Abram Mitchell.

New trial—ore *finding from evidence.*Where the evidence as to a particular issue is conflicting, a new trial will not be granted unless the finding of the court, where the trial is without a jury, is palpably against the weight of the evidence.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. Amos Watts, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Casey & Dwight, for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Geo. W. Wall, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a suit brought by Mitchell against six makers of a promissory note for $3000, given December 20,1869, and payable on or before December 20,1870, with ten per cent per annum interest, upon which were indorsed sundry credits.

*36The defendants pleaded usury, setting up that the note in suit was given in place of a previous note given to Mitchell by three of the defendants on the 1st of September, 1868; that in the first note there was reserved interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum, and that the second note was a mere continuation of that original transaction.

The case was before this court at a former term, and is reported in 77 Ill. 525, where, without expressing any opinion as to the sufficiency of the evidence as showing usury in the first note, it was held that, admitting to be true all that the defendant’s testimony tended to prove, the facts would not show that the second note, the one now in suit, was tainted with usury, and the only effect would be, if there had been usury in the first note, to subject the second note to a deduction of the amount of interest which had been paid on the first note. The case, having been remanded, came on to be tried again before the circuit court of Marion county, at the February term, 1876.

By agreement of parties, the cause was submitted to the court for trial without a jury, the issues were found for the plaintiff, and the damages assessed at $2593.85, which was the sum appearing to be due upon the note, supposing there was no deduction to be made on account of usury. The defendants took this appeal from the judgment.

The error assigned is, that the finding of the court was contrary to the evidence.

The court below must have found there was no usury in the first note. ' The evidence upon that subject was contradictory. Without reviewing it, we will say that, after a careful examination of the whole testimony, we can not say that the finding of the court was so palpably against the weight of evidence as to require that it should be disturbed.

The judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 82 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 82

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the Government of 
        the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense articles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 1, 2021

Mr. Menendez introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the Government of 
        the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense articles.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the issuance of a license 
to export with respect to the following proposed export to the 
Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is hereby prohibited:
            (1) The transfer to Saudi Arabia of the following defense 
        articles, including defense services and technical data, 
        described in the certification Transmittal No. DDTC 19-105, 
        sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
        chairmen of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
        and the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the House of 
        Representatives pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of section 
        36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) on December 
        22, 2020: 7,500 additional full-up-rounds of Paveway IV Weapon 
        Systems to Saudi Arabia.
                                 <all>
```
### Part C—Transfer Provisions
Exhibit 32

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


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Harvest  Valley  Ventures,
Inc.,  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31,  2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IIA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 2 

Disapproving the President’s proposal to take an action relating to the 

application of certain sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2019 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the President’s proposal to take an action relating to the application of certain sanctions with respect 

to the Russian Federation. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves of the action relating to the 

4 application of sanctions imposed with respect to the Rus5 sian Federation proposed by the President in the report 

6 submitted to Congress under section 216(a)(1) of the Rus7 sia Sanctions Review Act of 2017 on December 19, 2018, 

8 relating to terminating sanctions imposed on En+ Group 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 2 IS 

1 plc (‘‘En+’’), UC Rusal plc (‘‘Rusal’’), and JSC 

2 EuroSibEnergo (‘‘ESE’’). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIMON KARAPETYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73816

Agency No. A079-561-506

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Simon Karapetyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of

Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a

FILED

MAY 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73816

motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and

we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Karapetyan’s motion to

reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the

BIA’s prior order denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6895/January 13, 2023

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-21241

In the Matter of :

:

JASON JIANXUN TANG, CPA : ORDER

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding against Respondent Jason 

Jianxun Tang, CPA, with an Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP), pursuant to Sections 4C and 21C of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 201.102(e), on November 17, 2022. Pursuant to Respondent’s Offer of Settlement, the OIP made 

various findings of fact and conclusions of law, imposed remedial sanctions and a cease-and-desist 

order, and ordered a hearing before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge to determine what, if 

any, civil penalties are appropriate under Section 21C of the Exchange Act. 

Under consideration is the parties’ January 12, 2023, Joint Proposal for Postponement of 

Proceedings. They request a two-month postponement of the proceedings before the undersigned, 

based on their request that the Commission stay the proceedings. Good cause has been shown for the 

requested postponement, which will be granted. 17 C.F.R. § 201.161(a). The parties will file a 

proposal addressing the way forward by March 13, 2023, if the Commission has not yet ruled on the 

stay request by that date.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge
§ 30.7 How does the Attorney General communicate with state and local officials concerning the Department's programs and activities? ( a ) For those programs and activities covered by a state process under § 30.6, the Attorney General, to the extent permitted by law: ( 1 ) Uses the state process to determine views of state and local elected officials; and
( 2 ) Communicates with state and local elected officials, through the state process, as early in a program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.
( b ) The Attorney General provides notice to directly affected state, areawide, regional, and local entities in a state or proposed federal financial assistance or direct federal development if: ( 1 ) The state has not adopted a process under the Order; or
( 2 ) The assistance or development involves a program or activity not selected for the state process.
This notice may be made by publication in the Federal Register or other means which the Department in its discretion deems appropriate.
#### Elsita Nazario, Appellant, v St. Barnabas Hospital et al., Defendants, and Emilio Goez, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 197]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), *346entered March 22, 2002, which granted the motion by defendant Goez for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dr. Goez satisfied his initial burden of establishing, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact on medical malpractice and informed consent; plaintiff was then required to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial on those issues *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]). Instead, plaintiff offered, in relevant part, an unsworn report by a certain board-certified foot surgeon who had not personally examined the patient but had determined nonetheless, upon review of the materials presented to him, that there had been various deficiencies in the treatment administered, although he could not be certain that those deficiencies amounted to medical malpractice. Under the circumstances, the motion court properly found plaintiffs opposition devoid of competent admissible evidence to refute sufficiently the expert affidavit and other evidence submitted by Dr. Goez *(see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70*NY2d 966 [1988]). Indeed, there is no substantive proof in the record that the doctor who operated on plaintiff committed medical malpractice or failed to procure her informed consent to this surgery.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark W.
McCutcheon,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  August 26, 2004



/S/ MARK W. MCCUTCHEON
-------------------------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.


                                       78
#### § 3b.1 Purpose.

Part 3b describes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's program to implement the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896) to allow individuals to have a say in the collection and use of information which may be used in determinations affecting them. The program is structured to permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him and filed under his individual name, or some other identifying particular, are collected, maintained, used or disseminated by the Commission, to permit him access to such records, and to correct or amend them, and to provide that the Commission collect, use, maintain and disseminate such information in a lawful manner for a necessary purpose.

[Order 536, 40 FR 44288, Sept. 25, 1975, as amended by Order 737, 75 FR 43402, July 26, 2010]
EXHIBIT 21
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                             LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES


There are five active subsidiaries of the Company:

                                                                     Name Under which
Name of Subsidiary                  Jurisdiction of Incorporation  Subsidiary Does Business
<S>     <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>

Bontex S. A.                                Belgium                         Same

Bontex Italia S.r.l.                        Italy                           Same

Bontex, Inc.                                Virginia                        Same

Bontex de Mexico                            Mexico                          Same

GB Bontex Hong Kong Limited                 Hong Kong                       Same

</TABLE>
J.

Cherry 

### J. LANALSIKOV LOWE, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest. No. 63096



### ORDER DENYING PETITIONS
Docket Nos. 63107, 63108, and 63109 are proper person petitions for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition. Docket No. 63096 is a proper person petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner requests that the charges pending against him be dismissed with prejudice and that various attorneys and the district court judge be charged with crimes and/or suspended from the practice of law. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in these matters. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.320; NRS 34.330; MRS 34.360; MRS 34.370; NRS 34.700; NRS 34.710. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petitions DENIED.

/ / "

--- CA.^ Hardesty

2cc: Lanalsikov Lowe Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Clark County Public Defender Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(01 1947A 3
| (1) | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015 (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: November 9, 2015 |  /s/ Mark R. Baker                                                                                   |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Mark R. BakerChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)                                         |
|                        |                                                                                                      |
|                        |  /s/ Angelo W. Lovallo, Jr.                                                                          |
|                        | Angelo W. Lovallo, Jr.Vice President, Finance & Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
§ 115.353 Resident access to outside support services and legal representation. ( a ) The facility shall provide residents with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse, by providing, posting, or otherwise making accessible mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll free hotline numbers where available, of local, State, or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations, and, for persons detained solely for civil immigration purposes, immigrant services agencies. The facility shall enable reasonable communication between residents and these organizations and agencies, in as confidential a manner as possible.
( b ) The facility shall inform residents, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be monitored and the extent to which reports of abuse will be forwarded to authorities in accordance with mandatory reporting laws.
( c ) The agency shall maintain or attempt to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with community service providers that are able to provide residents with confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The agency shall maintain copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into such agreements.
( d ) The facility shall also provide residents with reasonable and confidential access to their attorneys or other legal representation and reasonable access to parents or legal guardians.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

**SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OFSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode), the undersigned officers of Corgenix Medical Corporation, a Nevadacorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the QuarterlyReport of Corgenix Medical Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities an Exchange Commission (the “10-Q Report”)that:

 

i.        the 10-Q Report fullycomplies with the guidance of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.     theinformation contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:     November 10, 2010

 

**This Certification is made solely for purposes of 18U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein,and not for any other purpose.**

 

**A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request. This written statement shall not bedeemed to be “filed” as part of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q that itaccompanies.**

 
| /s/  Douglass T. Simpson                           |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| President  and Chief Executive Officer             |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/  William H. Critchfield                        |   |
| Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----