alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arago Leroy WELCH, Appellant, v. Joe M. CREVASSE, Jr., as Sheriff of Alachua County, Florida, Appellee.

No. K-252.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 10, 1968.

Goldin & Jones, Gainesville, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Arago Leroy Welch appealed from an order denying his petition for writ of ha-beas corpus by which he asserted that he was entitled to bail while in jail, prior to indictment, under a charge of first degree murder.

*28The point on appeal is whether the evidence adduced by the State met the quantum of proof necessary in order to deny bail. We find that it does and affirm.

An eyewitness, Miss Angie Days, testified that both Welch and decedent were her boyfriends. At the time of the incident she and Welch were in her backyard and while engaged in an argument over the fact that she had driven his car without his permission, he became angry and hit her hard enough to knock her down causing her to drop the baby she was holding. She knew that decedent, who had a reputation for beating-up people was nearby but not visible. When she started screaming, decedent came, and she explained what had happened. With his fist, decedent hit Welch about the head hard enough to spin him around. Decedent then picked up the baby. Welch acted “like he was crazy,” pulled out his gun, and as decedent started running in the other direction, Welch shot him once in the chest when he was about eighteen feet away. Decedent dropped the baby, stopped, and put his hands up. Welch shot four more times. The preliminary autopsy showed that four bullets entered decedent’s body. Welch turned himself in at the police station with a lump on his head, but the skin was not broken.

The accused did not testify and did not offer any other evidence. However, he contends that the evidence shows self-defense or that he acted unreasonably in the heat of passion, anger, fright or undue excitement immediately following sufficient provocation, that there was no proof of premeditated design so he cannot be guilty of first degree murder, and bail should not have been denied.

The State contends that since the first shot was fired while the decedent was moving away from the accused, there was no self-defense, and since the next four shots were fired while decedent had his hands up, there was proof of premeditated design although it may not have existed for any appreciable length of time.

Section 9, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., states:

> “Right to .bail; when denied. — All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offences where the proof is evident or the presumption great.”

We find that the above proof fully and conclusively satisfies “the constitutional test in that the proof of first degree murder is evident and the presumption is great.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 3.2




     
                             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                         OF

                                AMENDED AND RESTATED
                            CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                         OF

                       PEPSI-COLA PUERTO RICO BOTTLING COMPANY

                              (A DELAWARE CORPORATION)

                                ________________________

                            UNDER SECTION 242 OF THE GENERAL
                        CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                                ________________________

          Pepsi-Cola  Puerto Rico Bottling Company, a corporation organized

and existing under the  laws  of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"),

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:



          FIRST:  Article NINTH  of  the Corporation's Amended and Restated

Certificate of Incorporation shall be  amended  by adding a new paragraph 7

thereto, which shall read as follows:

     "7.  In furtherance and not in limitation of  the rights, powers,
     privileges, and discretionary authority granted  or  conferred by
     the  General  Corporation  Law of the State of Delaware or  other
     statutes or laws of the State of Delaware, the board of Directors
     is expressly authorized to adopt,  amend or repeal the By-Laws of
     the Company, without any action on the  part  of the shareholders
     of the Company, but the shareholders may make additional  By-Laws
     and may alter, amend or repeal any By-Law whether adopted by them
     or otherwise."

                                            
PAGE
<PAGE>
          SECOND:  That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance  with

Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.


          IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF, Pepsi-Cola Puerto Rico Bottling Company has

caused its corporate seal  to  be  hereunto affixed and this Certificate of

Amendment to be executed and acknowledged  by its President and attested to

by its Secretary, as of this 2nd day of February, 1996.



                         PEPSI-COLA PUERTO RICO BOTTLING COMPANY

(SEAL)

                         By:    /S/ C. LEON TIMOTHY
                              ----------------------------------
                              C. Leon Timothy
                              Senior Vice President


Attest:

     /S/ LAWRENCE ODELL
---------------------------------
Lawrence Odell
Secretary


                                            2
#### C. A. DAVIS, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. YELL-FOR-PENNELL, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 43611.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 31, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 274 So.2d 267.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Garry Lon Brownlee, * From the 220 th District

Court of Comanche County,

Trial Court No. CCCR

- 07

- 03018

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00182

- CR * August 21, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance

with this court ’ s opinion, the appe al is dismissed.
#### In the Interest of D. A. W., a Child. Juvenile Case No. 9321.

No. 69-604.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1970.

William Murrell, Jr., Orlando, for appellant Jim Woods.

Robert W. Olsen, Orlando, for appellee Florida State Dept, of Public Welfare.

LEAVENGOOD, C. RICHARD, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Orange County Juvenile Court of July 13, 1967, granting respondent’s motion to dismiss and/or quash appellants’ petition of May 30, 1967, and again on appellants’ petition for rehearing of July 24, 1967, and order of the Honorable Richard B. Keat-ing, acting as Judge of the Juvenile Court of Orange County.

This is a case where this court has sympathy and personal feelings for the appellants, and we have read the briefs and original proceedings. As shown by In the Interest of D.A.W., Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 745; In the Interest of D.A.W., Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 786; In the Interest of D.A.W., Fla.1967, 193 So.2d 433; Woods v. State Department of Public Welfare, Fla.1967, 201 So.2d 562, this case has been in the courts many years.

Although the appellants have cited many reasons for reversal, the main issue in this case is, does the juvenile court lose jurisdiction over a child upon the entry of an order permanently committing a child to the State Department of Public Welfare for subsequent adoption under Section 39.-11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

It does not appear from the actual record, but the respondents’ brief recites that this child has been adopted by persons not a party to this suit. The date of this adoption is not known to the court, but the child is now approximately fourteen years old and adjusted to her new life.

We conclude the juvenile court *loses*jurisdiction after its final order permanently committing a child to the State Welfare Department or licensed child placing agency. To hold otherwise would put many adoptions in doubt.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 585 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 585

Authorizing and directing the Speaker to administer the oath of office 
           to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Steve Largent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 1994

Mr. Michel submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to.

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing and directing the Speaker to administer the oath of office 
           to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Steve Largent.

    Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and directed to 
administer the oath of office to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Steve 
Largent.
    Resolved, That the question of the final right of Mr. Steve Largent 
to a seat in the One Hundred Third Congress be referred to the 
Committee on House Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
4.3


 


DESCRIPTION
OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES


REGISTERED
PURUSANT TO SECTION 12 FO THE SECURITIES


EXCHNAGE
ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED


 


As
of December 31, 2020, Vivos Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) has one class of securities registered under Section
12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), its common stock, $0.0001 par value per
share (“Common Stock”).


 


Description
of Common Stock


 


The
following description of the Common Stock is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in
its entirety by reference to the Company’s certificate of incorporation (the “Certificate of Incorporation”)
and Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”), each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.3 is a part. We encourage you to read the Certificate of Incorporation, the Bylaws
and the applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law for additional information.


 


Authorized
Capital Shares


 


The
Company’s authorized capital shares consist of 200,000,000 shares of Common Stock and 50,000,000 shares of preferred stock,
$0.0001 par value per share (“Preferred Stock”).


 


Voting
Rights


 


Each
holder of Common Stock shall be entitled to one vote for each share of Common Stock held of record by such holder. The holders
of shares of Common Stock shall not have cumulative voting rights.


 


Dividend
Rights


 


Subject
to any other provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation, as it may be amended from time to time, and the rights of holders
of any series of outstanding Preferred Stock, holders of Common Stock shall be entitled to receive ratably, in proportion to the
number of shares held by them, such dividends and other distributions in cash, stock, or property of the Company when, as, and
if declared thereon by the Company’s Board of Directors from time to time out of assets or funds of the Company legally
available therefor.


 


Liquidation
Rights


 


In
the event of any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up (either voluntary or involuntary) of the Company, after payments to creditors
of the Company that may at the time be outstanding and subject to the rights of holders of any series of outstanding Preferred
Stock, the holders of shares of Common Stock shall be entitled to receive all remaining assets and funds of the Company available
for distribution, ratably in proportion to the number of shares held by them.


 


Other
Rights and Preferences


 


The
Common Stock has no sinking fund or redemption provisions or preemptive, conversion or exchange rights. Holders of Common Stock
may act by unanimous written consent.


 


Listing


 


The
Common Stock is traded on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the trading symbol “VVOS.”
Sensurion, Inc. 6300

– 34 th Ave. South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Sensurion, Inc., d.b.a. Sensurion Aerospace 6400 34 th Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN 55450 david.strohm@sensurion.com February 25, 2016 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 **Subject: Request to amend and allow Sensurion Inc., d.b.a Sensurion Aerospace to utilize additional sUAS platforms under the same direction as provided wit**  **hin exemption #13522, docket # FAA**  **- 2015**  **- 3542, approved November 5, 2015.**  Dear Sir/Madam, Sensurion Inc
. (d.b.a. Sensurion Aerospace) was issued an exemption under Section 333 of the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2013” (the Reform Act) numbered 13 522 (the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting sUAS operations in the market research, aerial survey and mapping and inspection industries. Sensurion Inc., hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional type of “multi
- rotor” unmann ed aircraft (UAS) to be operated in full compliance set forth within the Exemption. Sensurion Inc., requests permission to operate the following sUAS based on their type, size, weight and speed under the same parameters set forth in regards to capabilitie s and limitations identified within the Operator’s Manual and Maintenance Manual. Model Type Size Weight Speed MP
- 4 Multi
- rotor 39” O.D
. 5# 12oz. < 25 mph (with sensor) MP
- 4T Multi
- rotor 39” O.D. 5# 3oz. N/A (tethered) (with sensor)Sensurion, Inc. 6300

– 34 th Ave. South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1492 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1492

  For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2013

Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Schatz) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree).

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Vichai Sae 
Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree) shall be held and considered to 
have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of 
the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Vichai Sae Tung (also 
known as Chai Chaowasaree), as provided in this Act, the Secretary of 
State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate 
number during the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant 
visas available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under 
section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
#### Carol Ann COLBATH, Appellant, v. Walter N. COLBATH, Jr., Appellee.

No. 71-473.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 2, 1973.

Frank E. Booker, of Ryan, Taylor, Booker & Law, North Palm Beach, for appellant.

Thomas A. Bratten, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the standard set forth in Colbath v. Colbath (Fla.1972), 268 So.2d 361, we find that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error.

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., McNULTY, J., and PIERCE, J., (Ret.), concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

QUI NN CRUZ, JR.

,

Appellant,

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00058

- CR

Appeal from the

205 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20060D00581 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until

February 14

, 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

STATE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza , th e State ’s Attorney, p repare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 14 , 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th day of January , 201 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Birner Dental Management
      Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
      to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
      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.






Date: May
      15,
      2007





By: /s/
      Frederic W.J. Birner


Name:  Frederic
      W.J. Birner


Title: Chief
      Executive Officer





By: /s/
      Dennis N. Genty


Name:
      Dennis N. Genty


Title:  Chief
      Financial Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DIANE M. DeGEORGE and MICHAEL K. DeGEORGE,

Appellants,

v.

ALWAYS TRAVEL WITH US, INC., d/b/a VACATION VILLAGE 

VOYAGES, a Florida corporation,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-4354

[October 26, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 16-

001501.

Jared H. Beck, Elizabeth Lee Beck and Beverly Virues of Beck & Lee 

Trial Lawyers, Miami, for appellants.

John H. Pelzer of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, KLINGENSMITH, JJ., and BELANGER, ROBERT E., Associate Judge, 

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee,Inc. (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofhis knowledge:

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 10, 2004 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

•                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   April  22, 2004 | /s/ Martin  A. Lynch                                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    | Martin A.  Lynch                                      |
|                                    | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Note:  A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toDiedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Swanson, Brian (OST)
From: 

## ·· Senti**~"',** To: Subject: azolsen8335@aol.corn Monday, August 13, 2012 7:54 AM Swanson, Brian (OST) Air service to Brainerd, MN t

### z
Iwould strongly urge you to consider SkyWest as the air service to Brainerd. The connection they will have with Delta will be of greatvalue to. me since I fly from Brainerd to Arizona and back, also the use of the sky bridge that was recently installed atthe Brainerd Airportwould be put to good use. Thankyou for your consideration, Walfred Olsen 205 Buffalo Hills Ln W Brainerd MN

1
#### MODULAR BUILDING SYSTEMS CORPORATION and Horsemen’s Country Club, Inc., Appellants, v. Bernice E. LICKFELT, Appellee.

No. 73-1116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                           4,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                     69,429
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,939
<PP&E>                                         854,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                 495,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 565,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,803
<BONDS>                                        583,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,589
<OTHER-SE>                                   (258,370)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   565,693
<SALES>                                        572,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               572,376
<CGS>                                          546,833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  546,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (71,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,344
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (72,526)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (72,526)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (6.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.95)


</TABLE>