alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 Exhibit 31.1   **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**  I, Robert Russell, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of B2Digital, Incorporated;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer'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 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 other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controls over financial reporting.      *Date: July 16,2007* ** /s/ Robert Russell**  Robert Russell  Chief Executive Officer
```
#### The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. POOL SIDE CLUB, Appellee.

No. 13996.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Houston.

Oct. 4, 1962.

Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., Irwin R. Sal-manson and Norman V. Saurez, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, for appellant.

Edward A. Jahn, Galveston, for appellee.

WERLEIN, Justice.

This is an appeal by the Texas Liquor Control Board from a judgment of the District Court of Galveston County setting aside the order of the Administrator of the Texas Liquor Control Board which can-celled the private club registration permit of appellee, Pool Side Club. The trial court recited in its judgment that it found that Pool Side Club had violated its private club registration permit by having sold and offered for sale liquor so as to constitute an open saloon as defined by the Texas Liquor Control Act, and more particularly Art. 666-3 and Art. 666-15 (e) of Vernon’s Texas Penal Code. In its judgment setting aside the order of the Administrator, dated December 12, 1961, the court decreed that the private club registration permit issued Pool Side Club, License No. 37754, 2312 Boulevard, Galveston, Texas on September 7, 1961, be suspended for a period of sixty days beginning at 12 o’clock noon, January 19, 1962.

The undisputed evidence in the record shows that the permit in question expired under its own terms on August 31, 1962, and that a period of more than twelve months has elapsed since appellee’s violations of Sec. (7) (a), Art. 666-15(e), Vernon’s Texas Penal Code, as found by both the court and the Board, occurred. Therefore, this appeal is moot and should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 15, 2022

NO. 03-21-00587-CV

C. C., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 14, 2021. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of New-Era Trading
Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Steven L. Hocke, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of New-Era
Trading Group, Inc.

Dated: July 19, 2004


                             By: /s/ Steven L. Hocke
                                -------------------------
                           Name:     Steven L. Hocke
                          Title:     Chief Executive Officer and
                                     Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50853

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO TORRES SANDOVAL,

also known as Richard LNU,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-97-CR-157-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 25, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Court-appointed counsel for Ricardo Torres Sandoval has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sandoval has received

a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a

response. 

As part of the plea agreement, Sandoval waived the right to

appeal any aspect of his conviction and sentence. The waiver did

not apply to ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial 
No. 98-50853

-2-

misconduct of constitutional dimension of which Sandoval did not

have knowledge at the time of sentencing.

We have reviewed the record and find that Sandoval’s waiver

of his right to appeal was informed and voluntary. United States

v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, unless

circumstances exist which implicate the two exceptions of the

waiver-of-appeal provision, the waiver precludes any direct

appeal. See id.

Court-appointed counsel suggests that this court may want to

appoint substitute counsel for the purpose of reviewing the

sentencing proceedings, in light of Sandoval’s assertion at

sentencing that counsel was ineffective. To the extent that

counsel suggests that there may exist a nonfrivolous

ineffectiveness claim, the record has not been adequately

developed for us to consider such a claim on direct appeal. See

United States v. Scott, 159 F.3d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus,

counsel’s request that substitute counsel be appointed is DENIED.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous appellate issues. Accordingly, the motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 55

To amend title 38, United States Code, to deem certain service in the

organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of

the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts to have been active service

for purposes of benefits under programs administered by the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to deem certain

service in the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the

Philippine Scouts to have been active service for purposes

of benefits under programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Filipino Veterans

5 Equity Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 55 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN SERVICE IN THE ORGANIZED MILITARY

2 FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE PHIL3 IPPINE SCOUTS DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE

4 SERVICE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 107 of title 38, United

6 States Code, is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a)—

8 (A) by striking out ‘‘not’’ after ‘‘Army of

9 the United States, shall’’; and

10 (B) by striking out ‘‘, except benefits

11 under—’’ and all that follows and inserting in

12 lieu thereof a period; and

13 (2) in subsection (b)—

14 (A) by striking out ‘‘not’’ after ‘‘Armed

15 Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945

16 shall’’; and

17 (B) by striking out ‘‘except—’’ and all that

18 follows and inserting in lieu thereof a period.

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) The heading

20 of such section is amended to read as follows:
3

•S 55 IS

1 ‘‘§ 107. Certain service deemed to be active service:

2 service in organized military forces of the

3 Philippines and in the Philippine

4 Scouts’’.

5 (2) The item relating to such section in the table of

6 sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is

7 amended to read as follows:

‘‘107. Certain service deemed to be active service: service in organized military

forces of the Philippines and in the Philippine Scouts.’’.

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this

10 Act shall take effect on llllll.

11 (b) APPLICABILITY.—No benefits shall accrue to any

12 person for any period before the effective date of this Act

13 by reason of the amendments made by this Act.

Æ
#### Wallace COLLINS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 7, 1956.

Claude P. Stephens, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion for an appeal under KRS 21.080. The appellant was convicted of possessing alcoholic beverages (55 cases of beer) for sale in dry territory, sentenced to 35 days in jail and fined $100. Deputies of the Letcher County sheriff’s office watched appellant load his truck with beer in Perry County, hurried back to Letcher County to obtain a search warrant, and stopped appellant’s truck when it entered Letcher County but did not serve the search warrant. Instead, the officers said they wanted to see what appellant was hauling and appellant did not object thereto. After they had searched the truck they arrested appellant for reckless driving on a public highway, an offense they observed and which was the reason they did not serve their search warrant on appellant. We have held that a search is legal when made without objec*467tions. Patton v. Com., 273 Ky. 258, 116 S.W.2d 311; Davenport v. Com., 285 Ky. 628, 148 S.W.2d 1054. Since the appellant did not testify in his own behalf, the officers’ statements that the search was made without objections is not denied. The power of police officers to search a motor vehicle after arrest of the driver on a traffic charge is established. Commonwealth v. Chaplin, 307 Ky. 630, 211 S.W.2d 841.

The motion for an appeal is denied and the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6829
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Party in Interest - Appellant, and ALLEN MCRAE; CHARLES STEVENSON; PATRICK LAHENS; DENNIS BLYDEN; DAVID EVICK, JR.; RASHID QAWI AL-AMIN, Plaintiffs,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellee.

--------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-164-3) Submitted: September 1, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.- 2 - Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen E. McClelland, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Joel Christopher Hoppe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Stephen E. McClelland appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of McClelland’s motion for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) for the reasons stated by the district court. See McClelland v. Johnson , No. CA-03-164-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2004). We dismiss the appeal from the district court’s denial of McClelland’s motion for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. , 331 U.S. 519, 524 (1947) (“Ordinarily, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, no appeal lies from an order denying leave to intervene where intervention is a permissive matter with the discretion of the court.”). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the sole Manager ofVestin Fund I, LLC, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Vestin Fund I, LLC; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of Vestin Fund I, LLC as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  Vestin Fund I, LLC’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for Vestin Fund I, LLC and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to Vestin Fund I LLC, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986;  (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of Vestin Fund I, LLC’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluations; and  (d)  Disclosed in this report any changes in Vestin Fund I, LLC’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during Vestin Fund I LLC’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affectVestin Fund I LLC’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  Vestin Fund I, LLC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Vestin Fund I, LLC’s auditors andthe audit committee of Vestin Fund I, LLC’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect Vestin Fund I, LLC’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in Vestin Fund I, LLC’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: May 10, 2005     /s/ Michael V. Shustek    Michael V. Shustek    Chief Executive Officer*    Vestin Mortgage, Inc., sole    Manager of Vestin Fund I, LLC         * Michael V. Shustek functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the registrant
28
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 12

- 00763

- CV

Rajasekhar BORRA M.D. and Inpatient Consultants of Texas P.L.L.C., Appellants

v.

Rachael HERNANDEZ , Individually and on behalf of The Estate of Ricardo Hernandez Jr. Deceased, Ricardo Hernandez III, Tanya A. Hernandez, Roxanne H. Hernandez, Katherine A. Young and Rachael Lee Hernandez, Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar Co unty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CI

- 01562 John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 12, 2012

DIS MISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that they have

“reached an agreement to resolve the issues raised by the appeal.” The motion is granted , and

the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a), 43.2(f) . Costs of th e appeal are taxed

against the parties who incurred them. The clerk of this court is ordered to issue the mandate in

this appeal contemporaneously with this court’s opinion and judgment.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 3.1.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**OCCAM NETWORKS, INC.**

 

Adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware, Howard M. Bailey certifies that: 

 

1. He is the duly elected Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of OccamNetworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”). 

 

2. The first paragraph of Article IV of the currently effective Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

 

“The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to bedesignated, respectively, “Common Stock” and “Preferred Stock.” The total number of shares that the Corporation is authorized to issue is Four Hundred Five Million (405,000,000). Four Hundred Million (400,000,000) shares shall beCommon Stock, par value $0.001 per share, and Five Million (5,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share.” 

 

3. The fourth paragraph of Article VI of the currently effective Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby deleted inits entirety. 

 

4. This Certificate of Amendment has been dulyapproved by the Company’s Board of Directors in accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. 

 

5. This Certificate of Amendment has been duly approved by the Company’s stockholders in accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware GeneralCorporation Law. 

 

I hereby further declare and certify underpenalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Delaware that the facts set forth in the foregoing certificate are true and correct of my own knowledge and that this Certificate of Amendment is my act and deed. 

 

Executed at Santa Barbara, California, this 3rd day of June, 2003.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 54 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 54

  To amend title 18 to limit the application of the exclusionary rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Thurmond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18 to limit the application of the exclusionary rule.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be 
cited as the ``Exclusionary Rule Limitation Act of 1995''.
    Sec. 2. (a) Chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by adding the following two sections:
``Sec. 3508. Limitation of the fourth amendment exclusionary rule
    ``Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure 
shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States 
on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, if the search or 
seizure was undertaken in an objectively reasonable belief that it was 
in conformity with the fourth amendment. A showing that evidence was 
obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant constitutes 
prima facie evidence of such a reasonable belief, unless the warrant 
was obtained through intentional and material misrepresentation.
``Sec. 3509. General limitation of the exclusionary rule
    ``Except as specifically provided by statute or rule of procedure, 
evidence which is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded in a 
proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that the 
evidence was obtained in violation of a statute or rule of procedure, 
or of a regulation issued pursuant thereto.''.
    (b) The table of sections of chapter 223 of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof:

``3508. Limitation of the fourth amendment exclusionary rule.
``3509. General limitation of the exclusionary rule.
                                 <all>
```