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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 103 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 103

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the United States Armed Forces conducted military operations in 
        Southeast Asia during the period (known as the ``Vietnam era'') from 
        February 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975;
Whereas during the Vietnam era more than 3,403,000 American military personnel 
        served in the Republic of Vietnam and elsewhere in Southeast Asia in 
        support of United States military operations in Vietnam, while millions 
        more provided for the Nation's defense in other parts of the world;
Whereas during the Vietnam era untold numbers of civilian personnel of the 
        United States Government also served in support of United States 
        operations in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the world;
Whereas May 7, 2000, marks the 25th anniversary of the closing of the period 
        known as the Vietnam era; and
Whereas that date would be an appropriate occasion to recognize and express 
        appreciation for the individuals who served the Nation in Southeast Asia 
        and elsewhere in the world during the Vietnam era: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) honors the service and sacrifice of the members of the 
        Armed Forces and Federal civilian employees who during the 
        Vietnam era served the Nation in the Republic of Vietnam and 
        elsewhere in Southeast Asia or otherwise served in support of 
        United States operations in Vietnam and in support of United 
        States national security interests throughout the world;
            (2) recognizes and honors the sacrifice of the families of 
        those individuals referred to in paragraph (1) who lost their 
        lives or remain unaccounted for or were injured during that 
        era, in Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the world, in defense of 
        United States national security interests; and
            (3) encourages the American people, through appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities, to recognize the service and 
        sacrifice of those individuals.

            Passed the Senate May 4, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 103

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the members of the Armed Forces and Federal civilian employees 
who served the Nation during the Vietnam era and the families of those 
  individuals who lost their lives or remain unaccounted for or were 
injured during that era in Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the world in 
         defense of United States national security interests.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DEVORIS NEWSON,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00259-CR

Appeal from the

120th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110D01149)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
#### Frances THOMAS & Katherine Deliberto v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al, etc.

No. 57537

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 15, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1987.*

Crymes G. Pittman, Robert G. Germany, Cothren & Pittman, Jackson, Joe H. Montgomery, Williams, Williams & Montgomery, Poplarville, for appellants.

Robert M. Carpenter, Riddick & Carpenter, Rexford T. Brown, Downey & Brown, Jackson, John W. Christopher, Canton, James W. Nobles, Jr., Jackson, for appel-lees.

*

 Denial of Rehearing is without prejudice to Ap-pellee, New Hampshire Insurance Co., developing its contention that Appellee’s asserted liability is no part of Estate assets.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Charles T. Barber, Judge.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WALKER, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concurring

PRATHER, J., not participating.
#### Meequised LARAZABAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-2051.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1987.

*86James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Steven Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SANDERLIN, Judge.

Appellant was charged with trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine in excess of 28 grams, but less than 200 grams. He pleaded guilty and received two concurrent sentences of five and one-half years and was fined $50,000 for each charge. On appeal, appellant challenges the imposition of two fines. We affirm.

Section 893.135(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1985), provides for appellant to be sentenced “to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years and to pay a fine of $50,000.” This court has held that where a defendant is convicted for trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, the mandatory fine for each conviction must be imposed. *State v. Samudio,*460 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Accordingly, appellant’s judgments and sentences are affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 (A)

I, Lavi Krasney, CEO of CDOOR CORP., (the "registrant"), certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cdoor Corp.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
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
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant's other certifying 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)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls 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 the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report 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

c. 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The registrant's other certifying officer 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 the equivalent functions):


<PAGE>


a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial 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.

                                        Date: August 15, 2006

                                        /s/ Lavi Krasney
                                        ------------------------
                                        Lavi Krasney
                                        CEO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) of North American Insurance Leaders, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William R. de Jonge, President of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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



|                        |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: February 14, 2007 |  | /s/ William R. de Jonge      
|                        |  | President                    
|                        |  | (principal executive officer)
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ed HOWARD, Jr., Appellee.

No. 88-1498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Jan. 26, 1989.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1989.

*1280Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

No appearance, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

A police officer, knowing of an outstanding warrant for the arrest of appellee for a probation violation, commenced following appellee, who was driving a car. Appellee turned into a convenience store, got out of his car with a pouch in his hand, saw the officer, then put the pouch back into the car and locked it and put the key in his pocket. The police officer approached ap-pellee and advised him of the warrant for his arrest, called and verified the outstanding warrant, and then arrested him. After appellee was arrested, appellee’s brother arrived at the scene in another vehicle. Appellee told his brother to get appellee’s keys from appellee’s pocket and told his brother, “Don’t let them search my car.” The brother tried to get the keys from appellee’s pocket but the officer got there first and ordered the brother “to stand back.” The officer took the keys from appellee and searched the vehicle, finding contraband. The trial court suppressed the contraband evidence and the State appeals. We affirm.

We agree with the trial court that the search of appellee’s vehicle 'was not a search incident to a valid arrest. Appellee had exited his vehicle and locked it, and was detained until the validity of the outstanding arrest warrant was verified and then arrested. Of course, the officer’s suspicions were aroused when appellee put his pouch back in his car, locked it and tried to prevent his car from being searched. However, the officer did not have probable cause for a warrantless search of the car. There was no valid need or reason to search appellee’s vehicle as an incident to his valid arrest. *See State v. Bennett,*516 So.2d 964 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), *rev. denied,*528 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1988).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and DANIEL, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT MANGASARYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73950

Agency No. A077-835-150

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted January 8, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

The Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) adverse credibility determination

is not supported by substantial evidence. The BIA relied on alleged

inconsistencies in Mangasaryan’s testimony regarding the sequence of events and

the intervals between events, but those alleged inconsistencies are legitimately

explained by the obvious difficulty Mangasaryan experienced converting dates

FILED

JAN 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 2

from the Farsi calendar to the Gregorian calendar. See Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d

1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000). The only arguable exception involves Mangasaryan’s

testimony regarding the interval between the border and store incidents, but we

have held that a single inconsistency of this sort does not constitute substantial

evidence. See Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, 852 F.2d 1137, 1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 1988). 

As we concluded in 2009 on Mangasaryan’s first appeal to this court, he

may be able to show a nexus to a protected ground once his testimony is properly

credited. Mangasaryan v. Holder, 334 F. App’x 87, 88–89 (9th Cir. 2009). We

remand to the BIA to consider the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal

claims, with instructions to deem his testimony credible. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21
                                       
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      State or Other
                                                                      Jurisdiction of
                                          Percentage                  Incorporation or
Name of Subsidiary                          Owned                       Organization
------------------                          -----                       ------------

<S>                                <C>                            <C>
High Worth Holdings Ltd.            100%                           British Virgin Islands

CBR Finance (B.V.I.) Ltd.           100%                           British Virgin Islands

Zhaoqing Blue Ribbon                 60% (effective interest)      People's Republic of
  High Worth Brewery, Ltd.                                         China
  (Sino-foreign joint venture)  
 
Zhaoqing Brewery                     60% (effective interest)      People's Republic of 
                                                                   China

Zhaoqing Blue Ribbon                 24% (effective interest)      People's Republic of
  Brewery Noble, Ltd.                                              China
  (Sino-foreign joint venture)

Zhaoqing Blue Ribbon                 42% (effective interest)      People's Republic of
  Beer Marketing Company                                           China
  Limited 

Zao Yang Blue Ribbon                 33% (effective interest)      People's Republic of
High Worth Brewery                                                 China
Limited


Sichuan Blue Ribbon                  31% (effective interest)      People's Republic of 
High Worth E Mei Limited                                           China
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING**

**OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 I, Shaun Passley, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of EPAZZ, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of EPAZZ, Inc.

Date:  April 13, 2012

By:*/s/ Shaun Passley*

Shaun Passley,

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00566-CV

Pension Advisory Group, Inc. and Paul D. Hinson

v.

Fidelity Security Life Insurance Co.

On Appeal from the

343rd District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-12-0179-CV-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED IN PART and 

REVERSED IN PART, and the case should be REMANDED to the trial court. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN 

PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. 

Costs of the appeal are adjudged 50% against appellant and against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 30, 2016
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Annette Eggert, 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 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.

|                      |     |                                | 
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------ | 
|Date: August 16, 2010 | By: | /s/ Annette Eggert             | 
|                      |     |                                | 
|                      |     | Annette
 Eggert                | 
|                      |     | Chief
 Financial Officer       | 
|                      |     | (Principal
 Financial Officer) | 

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6925

GARRETT NEAL DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

F. CAMPBELL; SERGEANT WALKER, Correctional

Officer; DR. CYPRESS, Medical

Administrator/Dillwyn Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (CA-03-534-7)

Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: November 4, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garrett Neal Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY & WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Garrett Neal Davis appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v.

Campbell, No. CA-03-534-7 (W.D. Va. May 11, 2004). We deny the

motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00446-CR

VINCENT LEE SEAMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 372nd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1491876W)

January 23, 2020

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### ALFRED ACKER, JR., ET AL. *v.*ROMMERRO H. FARRAH ET AL.

*Joel M. Ellis,*in support of the petition.

*John K. Currie,*in opposition.

Decided March 17, 1998

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17844) is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendants’ petition for certification to appeal.
#### In the Matter of NEWARK ATHLETIC CLUB, Debtor; Julius S. Rippel, Appellant.

No. 7240.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Jan. 8, 1940.

Theodore Marsh (of Child, Riker, Marsh & Shipman), of Newark, N. J., for appellant.

Before BIGGS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the stipulation of counsel, filed January 6, 1940, it is now here ordered, adjudged and decreed by this Court that the order of the said District Court, entered September 12, 1939, confirming a plan for reorganization of the above named debtor, be and the same is hereby reversed and set aside, and the cause is remanded to the said District Court for such other proceedings as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
#### JOHN DENBY *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*Louis S. Avitabile,*in support of the petition.

*James M. Ralls,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 17, 1998

The petitioner John Denby’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 931 (AC 16721), is denied.