alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James M. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wireless Telecom Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this 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(s) 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 registrant 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and to the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 controls over financial reporting.

|Date: November 12, 2007 |                              
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|                        | /s/ James M. Johnson         
|                        | James M. Johnson             
|                        | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer)

---
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over 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
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(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 is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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.
  /s/ Stephen L. ClantonStephen L. ClantonChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            10 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 Yang Holding  Company  ("the
Company")  on Form  10-Q for the  period  ended  May 3,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report),  I. James
Chow,  Principal  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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 Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          Material respects,  the financial condition and result of operation of
          the Company.

                                                  /s/ James Chow
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  James Chow
                                                  President, Treasurer and
                                                  Secretary. Principal Financial
                                                  and Accounting Officer.

May 3, 2004
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 5th day of 

February, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Martin Almazan and Irasema Salinas, Appellants,

v.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company 

Americas as Trustee for Rali 

2007QS3 by and through its servicerin-fact, GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00712-CV (Tr.Ct.No. CL-12-2446-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 5, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 21st day of April, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

IN RE § CASE NO. ______________

JUSTIN CHISUM § 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Respondent The Honorable William Eichman, II, is the duly elected and 

qualified judge of the 364th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas. By virtue of 

his office, Respondent has jurisdiction over the instant case in which 

Defendant/Relator is seeking relief.

Defendant/Relator seeks relief in the instant case from Respondent’s failure 

to perform a ministerial duty, to wit: Respondent has failed to stay proceedings in 

Defendant/Relator’s case despite the legislative mandate of article 46B.004(d) of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The act or acts Defendant/Relator seeks to compel of Respondent are 

ministerial rather than discretionary.

 Moreover, Defendant/Relator seeks relief in the instant case from 

Respondent’s abuse of discretion, to wit: Respondent has failed to stay proceedings 

despite evidence of Defendant/Relator’s incompetency in violation of 

Defendant/Relator’s right to due process, right to counsel, and right to defend 

himself under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 

Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution.

WR-83,141-01

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/16/2015 11:06:22 AM

Accepted 4/16/2015 11:26:19 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/16/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
Defendant/Relator has no other adequate remedy at law to compel Respondent 

to grant the above request.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendant/Relator’s right to 

Due Process, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United 

States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution; right to defend 

himself guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 

Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution; and right to a stay of 

proceedings under article 46B.004(d) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, have 

been denied and Defendant/Relator is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the 

Honorable Trial Judge to grand the instant request.

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICE OF ALLISON 

CLAYTON

P.O. Box 64752

Lubbock, Texas 79464-4752

Tel: (806) 773-6889

Fax: (888) 688-4515

By:_________________________________

Allison Clayton

State Bar Number 24059587

Attorney for Justin Chisum
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 16, 2015, a copy of this brief was served on opposing 

counsel, Jeffrey S. Ford of the Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office and on 

the trial court, the Honorable William Eichman, II, of the 364th District Court of 

Lubbock County, Texas, via electronic mail.

_________________________________

Allison Clayton
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 American Medical Security
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gary D. Guengerich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.



/S/ GARY D. GUENGERICH
Gary D. Guengerich
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2016202EN.01035601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/356 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/356

---

54.   Declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Austria and the Kingdom of Sweden

Declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Austria and the Kingdom of Sweden

Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Austria and Sweden note that the core provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community have not been substantially amended since its entry into force and need to be brought up to date. They therefore support the idea of a Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, which should be convened as soon as possible.

---
NUMBER 13-14-00145-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MATTHEW CASANOVA A/K/A 

MATTHEW JOHN CASANOVA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Victoria County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is currently before the Court on appellant's third motion for extension of 

time to file the brief. The reporter’s record was filed on August 26, 2014, and appellant’s 

brief was originally due to be filed thirty days thereafter. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). 

This Court has previously granted appellant two extensions of time totaling 165 days to 
2

file the brief, and appellant now seeks an additional thirty days, until May 6, 2015, to file 

the brief. 

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

and ORDERS the Honorable Arnold Hayden, Jr. to file the brief on or before May 6, 2015. 

The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure to timely file a brief 

in this matter. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances. If 

counsel fails to file the brief within the specified period of time, the Court will act 

appropriately to ensure that appellant's rights are protected. See id. R. 38.8(b)(4). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

16th day of April, 2015.
#### The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Donald Lee McCOY, Appellee.

No. O-79-392.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 14, 1979.

*1045Terry L. Amend, Dist. Atty., Ted A. Knight, Asst. Dist. Atty., LeFlore County, for appellant.

Elton E. Thompson, Thompson & Thompson, Poteau, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

On November 13, 1978, Donald Lee McCoy was charged by information with First Degree Manslaughter pursuant to 21 O.S.1971, § 711, ¶ 1, in the District Court, LeFlore County, Case No. CRF-78-261. The information alleged that on October 13, 1978, the defendant, while driving under the influence of alcohol, had an automobile accident which resulted in a fatality. On November 27, 1978, the defendant entered his plea of guilty to a charge of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, that being the underlying misdemeanor in CRF-78-261. The court accepted the guilty plea and imposed judgment and sentence on that date. On December 20, 1978, the defendant filed his motion to quash the information and plea of former conviction, contending that the conviction for DUI was a bar to the misdemeanor-manslaughter charge. The magistrate sustained the motions and dismissed CRF-78-261 on January 11, 1979. From the order dismissing charges in CRF-78-261, the State has perfected an appeal to this Court, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

We first observe that when a prosecution is based on misdemeanor manslaughter the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the misdemeanor and that the misdemeanor was the proximate cause of death. See *Lime v. State,*Okl.Cr., 508 P.2d 710 (1973). This requirement is similar to the burden of proof placed on the State when it relies on the concept of felony murder in a murder prosecution.

In *Harris v. Oklahoma,*433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), the Supreme Court held that where proof of an underlying felony, i. e., armed robbery, is a necessary element of a felony-murder conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution for armed robbery. In reversing the armed robbery conviction in *Harris,*the Court cited *In re Nielson*131 U.S. 176, 188, 9 S.Ct. 672, 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889), which stated:

> “ ‘[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, . . . cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. 131 U.S. at *1046188, 9 S.Ct. at 676.’ . . . ” (Citations omitted)

We are of the opinion that the rationale in *Harris*is controlling here and, accordingly, hold that where the State relies on misdemeanor first degree manslaughter, a conviction for the underlying misdemeanor bars a subsequent prosecution for manslaughter in the first degree.

The order of the trial court, dismissing CRF — 78-261, is *AFFIRMED.*

CORNISH, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Beverly Call SHEW, John William Shew, Appellants.

No. 9067.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 7, 1963.

Decided Nov. 18, 1963.

*734John E. Hall (McElwee & Hall, N. Wilkesboro, N. C., on brief), for appellants.

William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty. (R. Bruce White, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH and BELL, Circuit Judges, and CRAVEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Reversal of their convictions of offenses relating to whisky is sought by these defendants on the basis of a contention that their motion to suppress evidence of the existence of the still and of the illegal whisky was wrongfully denied. We find the contention to be without merit.

Agents concealed themselves in woodlands some 200 yards from a barn. It was in the early part of the nighttime and the agents could see that lights were on in the barn. They testified they could hear the thumping sounds of a still’s boiler in the bam and could smell the odor of illegal whisky coming from it. Some dogs got scent of the agents, too, and John William Shew, heeding the barking of the dogs, came out of the bam and walked some 200 yards to the edge of the woods where the agents and the dogs were. After his flashlight revealed to him the presence of the agents, they identified themselves and arrested him. His clothing was covered with mash.

One of the agents then proceeded toward the bam. Though John William Shew had been instructed to remain silent, he began shouting warnings to his confederates. When the agent got close to the barn, he saw Mrs. Shew standing by a truck which was backed up to the main entrance of the barn. The truck was loaded with illegal whisky. Remarks were being exchanged by Mrs. Shew with an unidentified person in the bam. Mrs. Shew was placed under arrest and the agent entered the bam. As he did so, however, the unidentified third person escaped through a window and was not apprehended. The agent saw within the barn a large distillery.

This case is governed by our recent decision in United States v. Young, 4 Cir., 322 F.2d 443. What we said there need not be elaborated here. The circumstances, particularly the need to apprehend the fleeing third participant, warranted the agent’s entry into the barn. Clearly there was probable cause for the arrest of all three participants. There was no ransacking of the barn, of course, for the large distillery it contained was immediately and obviously apparent as soon as the agent entered the bam. The search, however, was plainly a reasonable one in connection with the arrest of Mrs. Shew and the attempt to arrest the third participant in the criminal activity.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

(Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



BNSF Railway Company



In connection with the Annual Report of BNSF Railway Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas N. Hund, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge on the date hereof:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 15, 2005



|                                                |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Matthew K. Rose                             |  | /s/ Thomas N. Hund                                  
|Matthew K. Rose                                 |  | Thomas N. Hund                                      
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BNSF Railway Company and will be retained by BNSF Railway Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Friday, April 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00809-CR

Ex Parte George GARCIA,

Appellant

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000CR5603W

The Honorable Andrew Wyatt Carruthers, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On April 7, 2015, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion 

to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the motion, Appellant’s 

counsel explained that he took the following steps:

(1) notified Appellant that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw, and enclosed copies of the documents;

(2) advised Appellant of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro 

se brief;

(3) advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review should the court of appeals determine the appeal is frivolous; and 

(4) provided Appellant with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, 

addressed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, that lacked only Appellant’s 

dated signature. 

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Owens, 

206 S.W.3d 670, 674 n.28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688–89

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appellant to do so within thirty 

days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). If Appellant files a pro se brief, the 

State may file a responsive brief not later than thirty days after the date Appellant’s pro se brief 

is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this 

court.
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court