alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr. Opinion No. C-723 

Administrator 

Texas Liquor Control Board 

Austin, Texas 

Re: Whether the Texas 

Liquor Control Board 

is authorized to issue 

a United States Bonded 

Liquor Export permit as 

provided for in sub-section (7b) of Section 15 

of Article 1 of the 

Texas Liquor Control Act 

(Article 666-15, (7b) of 

Vernon's Penal Code) to 

a. qua.lified applicant 

who desires to obtain 

Dear Mr. Stevenson: such a permit. 

Your letter requesting an opinion of this office reads 

as follows: 

"In the case of Texas Liquor Control 

Board vs. Ammex Warehouse Compa.ny, 384 

S.W.2d 768, it was held that Subsection 

(7b) of Section 15 of Article 1 of the 

Texas Liquor Control Act (Article 666-15, 

(7b), of Vernon's Texas Penal Code) is 

unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of 

Texas refused to review this decision because of no reversible error. The Supreme 

Court of the United States refused to 

grant certiorari. 

"Is the Texas Liquor Control Board 

authorized to issue a United States 

Bonded Liquor Export Permit as provided 

for in Subsection (7b) of Section 15 of 

Article 1 of the Texas Liquor Control 

Act (Article 666-15, (Tb), of Vernon's 

Texas Penal Code) to a qualified applicant who desires to obtain such a permit?" 

-3480- 
Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., Page 2 (C-723) 

As you stated in your opinion request, Article 666-15, 

(7b), of Vernon's Penal Code, has been held to violate the 

Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. Texas Liquor Control-Board v. Ammex Warehouse 

Company, 384 S.W.2d 768. 

The laws of the United States supersede or suspend the 

laws of a state insofar as they cover the same field and are 

applicable to matters over which Congress has assumed exclilsive jurisdiction. 

Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the 

Texas Liquor Control Board is not authorized to issue a United 

States Bonded Liquor Export Permit as provided for in Subsection (7b) of Section 15 of Article 1 of the Texas Liquor Control Act because said statute has been held to violate the 

Federal Constitution and is unconstitutional and invalid. 

SUMMARY 

The Texas Liquor Control Board is not 

authorized to issue a United States Bonded 

Liquor Export Permit to a qualified applicant who desires to obtain such a permit as 

Subsection (7b) of Section 15 of Article 

666 of Vernon's Penal Code has been declared 

unconstitutional and invalid. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney Genera,1 of Texas 

Assistant Attorney General 

DHC/dt 

-3481- 
Honorable Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., Page 3 (C-723) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

John Reeves 

Robert E. Owen 

Howard M. Fender 

Malcolm Quick 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By T. B. Wright 

-3482-
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 17, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00464

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.R., A.S.N., C.G.N. AND J.A.G., CHILDREN

,

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30,953

Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellee ’ s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to December 30, 2015. NO MORE EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE

ALLOWED

.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of December, 2 015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements Download
 Details
 Share
 News
 Faculty Spotlight! Mr. Harry Wingo, J.D By Faculty Spotlight
 Professor Wingo leads the Chief Information Officer (CIO) Leadership Development Program (LDP) at the National Defense University (NDU) College of Information and Cyberspace (CIC). He has over 25 years of government and corporate leadership experience, including 15 years focused on information and communications technology law and policy. Read more about his military and leadership experience click here!
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
# JD Work

### Professor

### 

### 

J.D. Work is a Professor at the National Defense University (NDU) College of Information and Cyberspace (CIC). His research focuses on cyber intelligence, operational art, and strategy in conflict and competition. Mr. Work has over 25 years’ experience working in cyber, intelligence, and operations roles for the private sector and U.S. Government. He holds additional affiliations with the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, the Krulak Center for Innovation and Future Warfare at the Marine Corps University, and the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.
#### § 95.2903 Definitions, PLBs and MSLDs.

*Identification code.* An identification code issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a unique identification for each PLB.

*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).* The U.S. Government Agency that is the United States Program Manager for the 406 MHz COSPAS/SARSAT satellite system.

*Maritime Survivor Locating Device (MSLD).* A device intended to aid in the location of persons in the water.

*Personal Locator Beacon (PLB).* A small portable transmitter, compliant with all of the rules in this subpart, that is intended to provide individuals in remote areas a means to alert others of an emergency situation and to aid search and rescue personnel to locate those in distress.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                            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 Western Water Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Patrick
George, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 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.




/s/  MICHAEL PATRICK GEORGE
---------------------------------------
Michael Patrick George
Chief Executive Officer
June 27, 2003
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00515-CV

In re Tommy Joe Kelley

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Tommy Joe Kelley has filed a “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.” Looking to the 

substance of Kelley’s pleading, rather than its title or form, we construe his pleading as a petition 

for writ of error coram nobis. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 

(Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than its form or caption to determine its 

nature).

The purpose of a writ of error coram nobis is to bring before the court rendering 

the judgment matters of fact which, if known at the time the judgment was rendered, would have 

prevented its rendition. Ex parte McKenzie, 29 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930). The 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has long held that this common-law writ has no application in 

this state. See Ex parte Massey, 249 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952); In re Johnson, 

No. 03-16-00277-CV, 2016 WL 1756707 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 27, 2016, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.).

The habeas corpus procedure set out in article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for felony post-conviction relief in Texas state court.
2

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, §§ 3(a), 5. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over 

post-conviction relief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See id. § 3(a); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); In re Wood, No. 

03-16-000651-CV, 2016 WL 6575240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 2, 2016, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we dismiss Kelley’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

________________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Filed: August 7, 2018
- FL 1971
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Jones Soda Co. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hassan N. Natha, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. the 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------
|                        |  | 
|/s/ Hassan N. Natha     |  |  |  | November 14, 2006
|Hassan N. Natha         |  |  |  |                  
|Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |
§ 80.855 Radiotelephone transmitter. ( a ) The transmitter must be capable of transmission of H3E and J3E emission on 2182 kHz, and J3E emission on 2638 kHz and at least two other frequencies within the band 1605 to 3500 kHz available for ship-to-shore or ship-to-ship communication.
( b ) The duty cycle of the transmitter must permit transmission of the international radiotelephone alarm signal.
( c ) The transmitter must be capable of transmitting clearly perceptible signals from ship to ship during daytime under normal conditions over a range of 150 nautical miles.
( d ) The transmitter complies with the range requirement specified in paragraph (c) of this section if: ( 1 ) The transmitter is capable of being matched to actual ship station transmitting antenna meeting the requirements of § 80.863; and
( 2 ) The output power is not less than 60 watts peak envelope power for H3E and J3E emission on the frequency 2182 kHz and for J3E emission on the frequency 2638 kHz into either an artificial antenna consisting of a series network of 10 ohms resistance and 200 picofarads capacitance, or an artificial antenna of 50 ohms nominal impedance. An individual demonstration of the power output capability of the transmitter, with the radiotelephone installation normally installed on board ship, may be required.
( e ) The transmitter must provide visual indication whenever the transmitter is supplying power to the antenna.
( f ) The transmitter must be protected from excessive currents and voltages.
( g ) A durable nameplate must be mounted on the transmitter or made an integral part of it showing clearly the name of the transmitter manufacturer and the type or model of the transmitter.
( h ) An artificial antenna must be provided to permit weekly checks of the automatic device for generating the radiotelephone alarm signal on frequencies other than the radiotelephone distress frequency.
#### § 80.304 Watch requirement during silence periods.

Each ship station operating on telephony on frequencies in the band 1605-3500 kHz must maintain a watch on the frequency 2182 kHz. This watch must be maintained at least twice each hour for 3 minutes commencing at x h.00 and x h.30 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) using either a loudspeaker or headphone. Except for distress, urgency or safety messages, ship stations must not transmit during the silence periods on 2182 kHz.

[69 FR 64673, Nov. 8, 2004]
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 quarterly report of Source Direct Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned principal executive officer and the principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 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:  May 12, 2004





/s/ Deren Z. Smith

Deren Z. Smith, President

(Principal Executive Officer)





/s/ Kevin Arave

Kevin Arave, Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)
- NM 1976 94TH
- NM 1976 94TH (2)
No. 11-8636.

#### Loyola *v.*Donahoe, Postmaster General.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*[565 U. S. 1258] denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50595

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MALDONADO-ZELAYA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-957-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Maldonado-Zelaya appeals the 60-month above-guidelines sentence 

and 3-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea 

conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process 

because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He 

concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement 

under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50595 Document: 00514378315 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2018
No. 17-50595

2

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). 

However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review 

because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the 

Court may reconsider this issue.

In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, the Supreme Court held that 

for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a 

fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court 

decisions did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 

759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United 

States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 

625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 

U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Maldonado-Zelaya’s argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50595 Document: 00514378315 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2018
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132723 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132723 

 COA: 273622 

Allegan CC: 02-012380-FC 

CHRISTOPHER HENRY FLOURNOY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2006 

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. 

d0319 

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. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
No. 11-6186.

#### Killing *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 95.2107 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Stephen C. Jones, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jones Soda Co.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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; 

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

4. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols 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 theperiod in which this report is being prepared; 

b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover 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 acceptedaccounting principles; 

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer 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 theequivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial 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. 

Dated as of November 10, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4812 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4812

To direct the Administrator of General Services to acquire by transfer 
the Old U.S. Mint in San Francisco, California, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 1994

Mr. Mineta (for himself and Ms. Pelosi) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Administrator of General Services to acquire by transfer 
the Old U.S. Mint in San Francisco, California, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. OLD U.S. MINT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Administrator of General Services shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to acquire by transfer, without consideration, the property 
referred to as the ``Old U.S. Mint'', located at Fifth and Mission 
Streets in San Francisco, California, together with any improvements, 
structures, and fixtures located on the property.
                                 <all>
```