alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21





Eateries, Inc.

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|Name of Subsidiary        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percentage of Ownership
|------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                          |  |                               |  |                        
|Fiesta Restaurants, Inc.  |  | Oklahoma                      |  | 100.0                  
|                          |  |                               |  |                        
|Roma Foods, Inc.          |  | Oklahoma                      |  | 100.0                  
|                          |  |                               |  |                        
|Garfield Management, Inc. |  | Oklahoma                      |  | 100.0
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to the requirements of Rules 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, James R. Musick provides the following certification.     I, James R. Musick, Principal Financial Officer of Vitro Diagnostics, Inc. (“Company”) certifythat: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in the annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15-d-14) for the registrantand have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company is made know to me by others, particularly duringthe period in which this annual report is being prepared;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of our board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the Company’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial date and have identified forthe Company’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls, and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees which have a significant role in the Company’s internalcontrols; and 6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal control or in other factors that could significantly affectinternal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including anycorrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.    Date: February 6, 2006    /s/ James R. Musick     James R. Musick, Chairman and Principle
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

SALVADOR RUIZ MAGANA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72031

Agency No. A092-034-740

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 

Salvador Ruiz Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) grant of cancellation of removal. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

FILED

JUL 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72031

and for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Brezilien v. Holder, 569

F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for

review.

Magana’s contention that his conviction for violation of California Health &

Safety Code § 11360(a) is not categorically a controlled substance offense under

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is foreclosed by our decision in Mielewczyk v. Holder,

575 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[O]ur statement that ‘solicitation is not a

[removable] offense under [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)],’ applied only to

violations of generic solicitation laws.”) (citing Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d

1322, 1326 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

Contrary to Magana’s contentions, the BIA did not engage in improper factfinding under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), or violate the standard of review that

governs review of the IJ’s factual findings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). The

BIA’s determination that Magana’s evidence of rehabilitation was insufficient to

merit cancellation of removal is a discretionary determination that we lack

jurisdiction to review. See Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2007)

(stating that the BIA’s consideration of alien’s rehabilitation falls within its

discretionary authority and is not subject to review). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

       I, Michael M. Thompson, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of TWC Holding LLC;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 16, 2006
|        | By:    | /s/ Michael M. Thompson                |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Michael M.  Thompson                   |
|   |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           17223
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4345
<ALLOWANCES>                                       786
<INVENTORY>                                       1476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 33133
<PP&E>                                          281883
<DEPRECIATION>                                   44405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  409587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39205
<BONDS>                                         180541
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                      157751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    409587
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                323218
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   153617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                143263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3146
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1951
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2338 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend 

funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the processing of permits. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2006 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to 

accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the processing of permits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

4 Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development 

5 Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–541; 33 U.S.C. 2201 note) 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2006’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘December 31, 2006’’. 

Æ
* 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. 95-10554 & No. 95-10557 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TODD ALAN ARNOLD,

 Defendant-Appellant.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEPHEN GREGG ECHOLS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-001-A-(2)

USDC No. 4:95-CR-001-A-(3)

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Todd Alan Arnold and Stephen Gregg Echols appeal their

sentences following their guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy

to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money
No. 95-10554 & 95-10557

-2-

laundering; and for mail fraud, for their role in a telemarketing

scheme. They argue that the district court erred in grouping the

money-laundering and fraud counts under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2 because

the counts did not involve the same victims.

Appellants did not raise the issue in the district court; we

therefore review only for plain error. See United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). We have reviewed the record, the

arguments, and the district court's decision to group the counts,

and find no error, plain or otherwise. See United States v.

Leonard, 61 F.3d 1181, 1185-86 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
(115 App. Div. 62)

#### MOORE v. WESTCHESTER ELECTRIC R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 5, 1906.)

Street Railroads—Injury to Travelers—Action—Evidence.

Where defendant’s street car struck the rear of a van loaded with furniture, which plaintiff was driving, with such force as to throw plaintiff from his seat and inflict serious injuries on him, evidence as to the injured condition of the furniture, immediately after the collision, was admissible to show the force of the impact, and on the issue of the speed of the car just prior to the collision.

Appeal from Westchester County Court.

Action by Charles C. Moore against the Westchester Electric Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion, for a new trial, he appeals Reversed

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Sydney A. Syme, for appellant.

Edward D. O’Brien, for respondent.

HOOKER, J.

The action is to recover damages for the negligent operation of one of the defendant’s street cars, by reason of which a van upon which the plaintiff was riding, driven in the car tracks along which the street car was approaching, was struck from the rear by the car with such violence as to throw the plaintiff from his seat and inflict serious injuries upon him.

Carbrey, a witness called by the plaintiff, was the owner of the van and horses injured in the collision. He arrived at the scene of the accident very soon after it took place, and describes the injuries to the van and to the front part of the street car. It appears that the van was loaded with furniture. He was asked on direct examination: “Q. What was the condition of that furniture in regard to being injured ?” The question was objected to, the objection was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted. In view of the fact that the principal questions in the case, and especially that as to the defendant’s negligence and the speed of the car, were sharply contested, and presented close questions of fact for the jury’s consideration, we think that the manifest mistake in excluding this question attained to the dignity of reversible error. The evidence was important for the purpose of showing the force of the impact, and inferentially the speed of the car, at that time. The questions of fact were so sharply contested and evenly balanced, when the case went to the jury, that it is not unreasonable to suppose that this error would have affected the result, especially as there appears to be no other evidence touching the condition of the furniture in the van.

*611The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Judgment and order of the County Court of Westchester county reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. Ail concur.
#### § 29.97 Who shall pass upon appeals.

Appeals shall be passed upon by an appeal inspector designated for the purpose by the Director. When authorized, by the Director, two or more appeal inspectors may jointly pass upon an appeal. The Division may authorize an inspector, supervising inspector, or other person to act as an appeal inspector, but no appeal inspector shall pass upon an appeal involving the correctness of a certificate issued or sample prepared by him.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION


I, John F. Passalaqua, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dolce Ventures Inc.;


2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;


3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;


4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:


a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  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 quarterly report is being prepared;


b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):


a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and


6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and I have  indicated  in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: July 26, 2005

                                         /s/ John F. Passalaqua______________
                                         John F. Passalaqua, Secretary/Treasurer
# National Child’s Day, 2010

On National Child’s Day, we celebrate America’s children and rededicate ourselves to helping them reach for their dreams and realize their full potential. To build a strong foundation for our children’s future, we must support their health and development and ensure that they receive a high-quality education that will prepare them to lead in the 21st century.

My Administration is committed to caring for our Nation’s most precious resource:  our children. I was proud to sign the Affordable Care Act into law, which expands families’ health insurance options and requires new plans to cover recommended preventive services—including well-baby and well-child visits and essential immunizations and vaccinations—with no out-of-pocket costs. It also prohibits insurance companies from using a pre-existing condition as a reason to deny health care coverage to children as of this year, and to all Americans in 2014. Additionally, through the “Let’s Move!” Initiative, First Lady Michelle Obama is helping lead our effort to end the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation by encouraging healthy eating and physical activity.

We must also invest in our Nation’s future by investing in our children’s education, for it is both a key to success and a prerequisite to opportunity. Early childhood education programs can greatly influence learning capabilities later in life, and my Administration is working to expand these programs and improve their quality. Teachers are the most important resource to a child’s learning, and countless children benefit from the experience and enthusiasm that teachers bring to the classroom. These individuals instill in our youth the knowledge that will enable them to grow into active and engaged adults. Through such care and guidance—and a greater effort by all to provide safe, supportive spaces for our children, free of bullying and harassment—we will unlock the promise within each child.

Our children will soon stand at the helm of America and steer its course. This Child’s Day, let us recommit to instilling the values, vision, and knowledge that will allow our children to realize a future of opportunity and prosperity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 20, 2010, as National Child’s Day. I call upon all citizens to observe this day with appropriate activities, programs, and ceremonies, and to rededicate ourselves to creating the bright future we want for our Nation’s children.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010-29798

Billing code 3195-W1-P
#### § 29.3561 Type 95.

That type of air-cured tobacco commonly known as Foreign-grown Dark Air-cured produced in countries other than the United States.

[49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

,

v.

RODOLFO MORALES

,

Appelle e

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00021

- CR

Appeal from the

Criminal Court at Law No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20 180 C 0 6554 )

O R D E R

Following the grant of several extensions and a status hearing in the trial court, the

Appellee's Brief was ordered due in this Court on February 22. 2021. Our previous order contained

a warning stating that Appellee's failure to file a brief would result in this State's appeal being

submitted without the benefit of an Appellee's Brief. As of this date, Appellee has not filed a brief.

Therefore, we order this case to be submitted without the benefit of an Appellee's Brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of March, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.