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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 226

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be issued

in honor of Melvin Jones.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2001

Mr. FROST (for himself, Mrs. BIGGERT, and Mr. KOLBE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp

should be issued in honor of Melvin Jones.

Whereas Melvin Jones was born on January 13, 1879, at

Fort Thomas, Arizona, and passed away on June 1,

1961, at the age of 82;

Whereas Melvin Jones founded the International Association

of Lions Clubs in 1917 under the premise that such clubs

shall not hold the financial betterment of their members

as their object;

Whereas the International Association of Lions Clubs, known

as Lions International, held its first convention in Dallas,

Texas, in October, 1917, electing Melvin Jones Secretary;
2

•HCON 226 IH

Whereas Melvin Jones abandoned his job at an insurance

agency to devote himself full time to the Lions;

Whereas Lions International has 44,500 clubs with over 1.4

million members in 186 countries and geographical areas

worldwide;

Whereas Lions Club members give their time, skills, and resources to encourage charitable giving for the benefit of

their communities, and for worthy projects throughout

the world;

Whereas Lions International has raised billions of dollars for

various charitable causes, including sight conservation,

diabetes awareness, cancer research, and disaster relief;

and

Whereas for over 80 years, Lions International has benefited

countless persons by fulfilling the mission set out by Melvin Jones in the Association’s motto, We Serve: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the United States Postal Service should

4 issue a postage stamp in honor of Melvin Jones; and

5 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

6 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

7 such a postage stamp be issued.

Æ
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00059-CV

In re B. K.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

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

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne and Justices Baker and Smith

Filed: June 11, 2021
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00321-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R. AND 

L.A.R., CHILDREN

------------

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

On October 12, 2011, and October 27, 2011, we notified appellant J.R., in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss his 

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant J.R. has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant J.R. has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules 

of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

2007,2 we dismiss the appeal of J.R. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). The 

appeal of appellant V.E. remains pending.

Appellant J.R. shall pay all costs of his appeal, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 23, 2011

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Richard J. Naughton, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated 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 small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.       Date: May 15, 2007 /s/ RICHARD J. NAUGHTON         Name: Richard J. Naughton    Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Jewell L. CARREATHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold G. CARREATHERS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82CA0268.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Oct. 28, 1982.

James E. Rowe, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Leslie Kaemingk, Westminster, for defendant-appellee.

COYTE, Judge.

Plaintiff, Jewell L. Carreathers, appeals the judgment of the trial court entered in a forcible entry and detainer action against defendant, Harold G. Carreathers. Since the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse.

Plaintiff filed this forcible entry and de-tainer action in the Denver Superior Court against defendant seeking to recover possession of a house she claimed to own and $1500 in back rent. In his answer defendant denied that plaintiff was the true owner of the premises, admitted he was in possession, but denied that it was pursuant to a leasing agreement, and alleged the affirmative defense that he was the equitable owner of the property. Following a trial of the issues raised by the pleadings, the court ordered the forcible entry and detainer action dismissed and directed plaintiff to give defendant a quitclaim deed to the property.

The parties have not raised the issue of the subject matter jurisdiction of the Superior Court in the trial court or in this appeal. However, the question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of an action without an assignment of error, and an appellate court may decide a question of subject matter jurisdiction where it appears on the face of the record. *Peaker*v. *Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District,*174 Colo. 210, 483 P.2d 232 (1971).

Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the Superior Court did not *872have subject matter jurisdiction to decide any issue in this case.

The Superior Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. *Denver County Court v. Lee,*165 Colo. 455, 439 P.2d 737 (1968). Its jurisdiction is “concurrent with the district courts in all civil actions, suits, and proceedings whatsoever where the debt, damage, or claim *or value of the property*involved in such civil actions is more than one thousand dollars but does not exceed five thousand dollars .... ” Section 13-7-102(2), C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.) (emphasis added) If the amount in controversy exceeds the limits prescribed for the Superi- or Court, then that court shall transfer such actions to the district court. Section 13-7-103(2), C.R.S.1973.

In this case, defendant’s answer to the complaint and his affirmative defense raised the issue of title to the property, and the record indicates that the value of the property exceeded $5,000. Thus, this case was a civil action in which the value of the property exceeded the jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and that court erred in deciding any of the issues raised. *See White v. Widger,*144 Colo. 566, 358 P.2d 592 (1960); *Cox v. Godec,*107 Colo. 69, 108 P.2d 876 (1941).

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to transfer the case to the district court for further proceedings.

PIERCE and KELLY, JJ., concur.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of V.K.H.H., a Child

No. 06

- 21

- 00072

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 19D0442

- CCL ). Opinion delivered by Justice Car ter ,* Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

. *Justice Carter, Retired, Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the order of the court

below. We affirm the trial court ’ s order

. We furt her order that the appellant pay all costs i ncurred by reason of this a ppeal.

RENDERED MAY 11 , 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Aut rey , Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------

                SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY AT DECEMBER 31, 1999
                ------------------------------------------------

                                                    Jurisdiction of
Entity                                              Incorporation
------                                              -------------
Atwood Publishing, LLC                              Delaware
EXPO Magazine, LLC                                  Delaware
GEM Communications, LLC                             Delaware
TOIC, Limited                                       United Kingdom
InterGame, Limited                                  United Kingdom
Afro Games (Proprietary) Limited                    South Africa
Vegas People, LLC                                   Nevada
Bingo World, LLC                                    Nevada
Galaxy Information Services, LLC                    Delaware
I.T.S. Information Services, Inc.                   Delaware
Galaxy Expocard Europe B.V.                         Netherlands
Total Information Services, Inc.                    Oklahoma
Record Search, Inc.                                 Delaware
Crimesearch, Inc.                                   Oklahoma
World Gaming Network, Inc.                          Delaware
TOIC Nevada, Inc.                                   Nevada
TOIC Holdings, Inc.                                 Delaware
The Official Information Company, Limited           United Kingdom
T/SF New Jersey, Inc.                               New Jersey
South Jersey Shopper, Inc.                          New Jersey
T/SF Holdings, LLC                                  Delaware
#### Charles G. COPELIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. A-35.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Feb. 17, 1984.

*609Daniel Westerburg, Birch, Horton, Bitt-ner, Pestinger & Anderson, Anchorage, for appellant.

David C. Stewart, Asst. Dist. Atty., Victor C. Krumm, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, and Norman C. Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

SINGLETON, Judge.

Charles Copelin was convicted of driving while intoxicated. AS 28.35.030. He appealed his conviction which was ultimately reversed. *Copelin v. State,*659 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1983). The supreme court held that the police had violated Copelin’s statutory right to counsel by refusing to give him an opportunity to contact counsel prior to taking a breathalyzer examination and prior to performing field sobriety tests in front of a video camera. On remand Cope-lin was tried a second time. The trial court followed the supreme court’s decision and excluded all evidence of Copelin’s actions at the police station. The court nevertheless permitted the arresting officer to testify regarding Copelin’s inability to perform field sobriety tests at the scene of his investigatory stop. Copelin was convicted a second time and he again appeals. He argues that his right to contact counsel attached at the time of the investigatory stop because he was in custody at the time. He does not contend that he was under arrest at that time. *See Howard v. State,*664 P.2d 603, 608-11 (Alaska App.1983) (distinguishing between on the scene investigations, investigatory stops and arrests).

We are satisfied that the Alaska Supreme Court rejected Copelin’s arguments in *Copelin v. State,*659 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1983) and *Anchorage v. Geber,*592 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1979). We read those cases as holding that any right to consult counsel does not attach until after an arrest. *See*AS 12.25.150(b). Here, the field sobriety tests were administered prior to arrest as part of an investigatory stop. Consequently, Copelin had no statutory right to contact counsel until he was taken to the police station.

Copelin nevertheless argues that he had a constitutional right to contact counsel before being required to perform field sobriety tests. He relies upon *Walker v. State,*652 P.2d 88 (Alaska 1982) and *Blue v. State,*558 P.2d 636 (Alaska 1977). In *Svedlund v. Anchorage,*671 P.2d 378, 382 (Alaska App.1983), we rejected a similar argument and held that any right to contact counsel prior to taking field sobriety tests or submitting to a breathalyzer examination was a creature of statute and not the state or federal constitutions. In *Sved-lund,*we concluded that *Blue*and, and by implication, *Walker*were distinguishable. *Id.*We adhere to that decision.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Úřední věstník C 145/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 145 |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 6330. dubna 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 145

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 6330. dubna 2020

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |
| | Rada |
| 2020/C 145/01 | Rozhodnutí Rady ze dne 28. dubna 2020 o jmenování členů výboru pro vědu a techniku | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

Rada

2020/C 145/01

Rozhodnutí Rady ze dne 28. dubna 2020 o jmenování členů výboru pro vědu a techniku

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Rada

| 30.4.2020 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | C 145/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2020

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

C 145/1

---

ROZHODNUTÍ RADY

ze dne 28. dubna 2020

o jmenování členů výboru pro vědu a techniku

(2020/C 145/01)

RADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,

s ohledem na Smlouvu o založení Evropského společenství pro atomovou energii, a zejména na čl. 134 odst. 2 této smlouvy,

po konzultaci s Evropskou komisí,

vzhledem k těmto důvodům:

| (1) | Rozhodnutím ze dne 6. listopadu 2018 (1) jmenovala Rada členy Výboru pro vědu a techniku (dále jen „výbor“) na období od 6. listopadu 2018 do 6. listopadu 2023. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Rozhodnutím ze dne 6. listopadu 2018 (1) jmenovala Rada členy Výboru pro vědu a techniku (dále jen „výbor“) na období od 6. listopadu 2018 do 6. listopadu 2023.

| (2) | Po úmrtí pana Eugenijuse UŠPURASE se ve výboru uvolnilo jedno místo člena. Proto by měl být na zbývající část funkčního období pana Eugenijuse UŠPURASE jmenován nový člen. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Po úmrtí pana Eugenijuse UŠPURASE se ve výboru uvolnilo jedno místo člena. Proto by měl být na zbývající část funkčního období pana Eugenijuse UŠPURASE jmenován nový člen.

| (3) | Po odstoupení pana Grzegorze WROCHNY se ve výboru uvolnilo jedno místo člena. Proto by měl být na zbývající část funkčního období pana Grzegorze WROCHNY jmenován nový člen, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Po odstoupení pana Grzegorze WROCHNY se ve výboru uvolnilo jedno místo člena. Proto by měl být na zbývající část funkčního období pana Grzegorze WROCHNY jmenován nový člen,

PŘIJALA TOTO ROZHODNUTÍ:

Článek 1

Na období do 6. listopadu 2023 jsou členy Výboru pro vědu a techniku jmenováni pan Egidijus URBONAVIČIUS a pan Józef SOBOLEWSKI.

Článek 2

Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem přijetí.

V Bruselu dne 28. dubna 2020.

Za Radu

předseda

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN

---

(1)  Rozhodnutí Rady ze dne 6. listopadu 2018 o jmenování členů Výboru pro vědu a techniku (Úř. věst. C 403, 9.11.2018, s. 2).

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge and            belief: (1) the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 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 Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented.

 

 

| By:    |   | /s/ Thomas W. Winfree                                     |   | Date:November 14, 2008 |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   | Thomas W. Winfree

President and

Chief Executive Officer |   |                   |

 

| By:    |   | /s/ C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.                                                 |   | Date:November 14, 2008 |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   | C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer |   |                   |
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 66

To authorize testimony, documentary production, and representation of

employees of the Senate in United States v. Yah Lin ‘‘Charlie’’ Trie.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony, documentary production, and representation of employees of the Senate in United States

v. Yah Lin ‘‘Charlie’’ Trie.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Yah Lin ‘‘Charlie’’

Trie, Criminal No. LR–CR–98–239, pending in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Arkansas, documentary and testimonial evidence are

being sought from the Committee on Governmental Affairs;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their

official responsibilities;
2

SRES 66 ATS

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the chairman and ranking minority

2 member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, acting

3 jointly, are authorized to produce records of the com4 mittee, and present and former employees of the com5 mittee from whom testimony is required are authorized

6 to testify, in the case of United States v. Yah Lin ‘‘Char7 lie’’ Trie, except concerning matters for which a privilege

8 should be asserted.

9 SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized

10 to represent present and former employees of the Senate

11 in connection with the testimony authorized in section one.

Æ
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 340

Designating December 10, 2000, as ‘‘National Children’s Memorial Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21, 2000

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HELMS,

Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KERREY, Mr. KOHL,

Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.

ROBB, Mr. SARBANES, and Mr. VOINOVICH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating December 10, 2000, as ‘‘National Children’s

Memorial Day’’.

Whereas approximately 80,000 infants, children, teenagers,

and young adults of families living throughout the United

States die each year from myriad causes;

Whereas the death of an infant, child, teenager, or young

adult of a family is considered to be 1 of the greatest

tragedies that a parent or family will ever endure during

a lifetime; and

Whereas a supportive environment and empathy and understanding are considered critical factors in the healing
2

•SRES 340 IS

process of a family that is coping with and recovering

from the loss of a loved one: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL CHILDREN’S ME3 MORIAL DAY.

4 The Senate—

5 (1) designates December 10, 2000, as ‘‘Na6 tional Children’s Memorial Day’’; and

7 (2) requests that the President issue a procla8 mation calling upon the people of the United States

9 to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and

10 activities in remembrance of the many infants, chil11 dren, teenagers, and young adults of families in the

12 United States who have died.

Æ
391 A.2d 689

#### Commonwealth v. Lanehart, Appellant.

Submitted March 13, 1978.

Robert E. Graham, Jr., and Sharpe & Sharpe, for appellant; Gary Deane Wilt, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order affirmed.