alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Charlie W. Brinkley, Jr., certify that:         1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofSouthern Community Bancorp (the “Issuer”);         2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;         3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;         4.  The Issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theIssuer and have:      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theIssuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Issuer’smost recently completed fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theIssuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and         5.  The Issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Issuer’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Issuer’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have significant role in the Issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2004
/s/ Charlie W. Brinkley, Jr.
#### BOGGS v. STATE.

No. 26506.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area; punishment assessed at sixty days in jail and a fine of $500. .

The information in this case alleges that the offense was committed on or about the 25th day of August, 1952.

It was stipulated that Crosby County was a dry area.

Geneva Butler testified that she saw Lawrence Boggs on or about the 25th day of August, 1952; that she did not recall the exact date, but it was in August. She further said that Sheriff Hillin was at her place “in the month of August, but I" don’t just exactly know the date.” Geneva But*321ler further testified that she bought a case of beer from Lawrence Boggs in the month of August; that she bought “this beer,” which was Falstaff, from the defendant and paid him $7 for it about two days before Sheriff Hillin was at her place. She further testified that the second day after she “bought this beer,” Sheriff Hillin got three or four cans of beer “out of my ice box,” and this occurred in Crosby County.

Sheriff Hillin testified that he went to the cafe of Geneva Butler on the 26th day of August. He further testified that at that time at her cafe he took four cans of Falstaff beer from her ice box; he also testified that the cans of beer shown him were the same cans of beer that he “took from Geneva’s ice box.” These four cans of beer were introduced in evidence. Sheriff Hil-lin further said that he signed the complaint “in this cause” on the 27th day of August, 1952.

By Bill of Exception No. 1, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that “if you find from the evidence or have a reasonable doubt thereof that a sale of beer was made by the defendant to the said Geneva Butler more than two years prior to August 27, 1952, and that no sale took place subsequent to August 27, 1950, you will find the defendant not guilty.”

We think that the evidence in regard to the time of the commission of the offense is sufficient to warrant and sustain the conviction. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find that no issue was raised by the evidence requiring a charge upon the law of limitation. Martin v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 66, 91 S.W.2d 707; 12 Tex.Jur. 498, Sec. 198.

By Bills of Exception Nos. 2 and 3, appellant complains of the introduction in evidence of State’s Exhibit No. 1, the same being four cans of Falstaff beer, which the state contends is the beer sold by appellant to Geneva Butler, upon the ground that same was not properly identified and the appellant’s connection therewith was not shown, and further complains of the court’s refusal to withdraw from the jury’s consideration State’s Exhibit No. 1, and urges that such action was error.

We find the evidence is sufficient to properly identify State’s Exhibit No. 1 and connect appellant therewith.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court'is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2040 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, 

join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Ms. FOXX, 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to 

refrain from such activities. 

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 ‘‘National Right-to5 Work Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA7 TIONS ACT. 

8 (a) Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act 

9 (the ‘‘Act’’) (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended by striking ‘‘exVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:15 Jun 01, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2040.IH H2040

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2040 IH

1 cept to’’ and all that follows through ‘‘authorized in sec2 tion 8(a)(3)’’. 

3 (b) Section 8(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)) is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘: Provided, That’’ and all that fol5 lows through ‘‘retaining membership’’ in paragraph (3). 

6 (c) Section 8(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘or to discriminate’’ and all that fol8 lows through ‘‘retaining membership’’ in paragraph (2) 

9 and by striking ‘‘covered by an agreement authorized 

10 under subsection (a)(3) of this section’’ in paragraph (5). 

11 (d) Section 8(f) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(f)) is 

12 amended by striking clause (2) and by redesignating 

13 clauses (3) and (4) as (2) and (3), respectively. 

14 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

15 Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) 

16 is amended by striking paragraph Eleventh. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Bandier Realty Partners, LLC and Switchback Ventures, LLC v.

SSC Opportunity Partners, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-13-00782-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-43194

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 12, 2015

Party filing motion: Appellee SSC Opportunity Partners

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack, Justice Higley, and Justice Massengale

Date: November 24, 2015
#### BRANHAVEN ASSOCIATES *v.*VITROM, INC.

(15278)

Dupont, C. X, and Foti, Lavery, Heiman and Spear, Js.

*514Considered December 27, 1995

decision released March 5, 1996

*Robert D. Mercer-Falkoff,*in support of the motion.

*Eric R. Gaynor,*in opposition to the motion.

SPEAR, J.

The plaintiff in this summary process action moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the defendant did not post a bond as required by General Statutes § 47a-35a (a).1 The sole issue is whether this particular bond requirement applies where premises are leased for use as a restaurant rather than as a dwelling unit. We conclude that the bond provision of § 47a-35a (a) does not apply to this appeal and, therefore, deny the motion to dismiss.

After the defendant failed to pay rent pursuant to a lease agreement between the parties, the plaintiff commenced a summary process action. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and this appeal followed.

The plaintiff argues that, pursuant to § 47a-35a (a), upon filing its appeal, the defendant was required to give a bond to guarantee payment of rents that may accrue while the appeal is pending. Section 47a-35a (a) provides in relevant part: “When any appeal is taken by the defendant occupying a *dwelling unit*as defined in section 47a-l in an action of summary process, he *515shall, within the period allowed for taking such appeal, give a bond with surety to the adverse party to guarantee payment for all rents that may accrue during the pen-dency of such appeal . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

The defendant asserts that § 47a-35a (a) does not apply to this appeal because the defendant does not occupy a dwelling unit as defined in General Statutes § 47a-l. Section 47a-l (c) defines a dwelling unit as “any house or building, or portion thereof, which is occupied, is designed to be occupied, or is rented, leased or hired out to be occupied, as a home or residence of one or more persons.”

The parties’ lease agreement is entitled “shopping center lease” and provides for the use of the leased premises as a restaurant. Because the space was leased to the defendant for business purposes, the property does not satisfy the definition of a dwelling unit under § 47a-l and, therefore, § 47a-35a (a) does not apply.2

The motion to dismiss is denied.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1

 The relevant portion of § 47a-35a (a) is set out in the body of this opinion.

2

 We note that General Statutes § 47a-35a (b) provides: “In any other appeal the court on its own motion or on motion of the parties, may fix a sufficient bond with surety to the adverse party in such amount as it may determine." If the plaintiff in this case desired an appeal bond from the defendant, the plaintiff should have moved the court to set a bond pursuant to § 47a-35a (b). See *New Haven*v. *Konstandinidis,*29 Conn. App. 139, 612 A.2d 822, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 920, 618 A.2d 527 (1992).
Order: 2014-3-4

Served: March 7, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 7th day of March, 2014

Essential Air Service at

SHOW LOW, ARIZONA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-1998-4409

 

ORDER APPROVING ALTERNATE SERVICE PATTERN

Summary

By this Order, the Department is approving the request of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great 

Lakes) to change part of its service pattern at Show Low, Arizona, to include the option of 

nonstop service to Denver International Airport (Denver) via Farmington, New Mexico,

effective March 9, 2014.

Background

By Order 2013-6-1, (June 3, 2013), the Department re-selected Great Lakes to provide 

subsidized Essential Air Service (EAS) at Show Low for the two-year period through

April 30, 2015. That Order established a subsidy rate of $1,672,000 for service consisting of

18 weekly nonstop round trips during peak season, and 12 weekly nonstop round trips during 

off-peak season to either Los Angeles International Airport (Los Angeles) or Phoenix Sky 

Harbor International Airport (Phoenix) using 19-passenger Beechcraft 1900D aircraft. 

Airline Proposal

As a result of the severe pilot shortage at Great Lakes, the airline has requested that the 

Department allow them the option to serve Show Low from its Denver hub, effective 

March 9, 2014.

Community Comments

Glen Boyd, Manager of Show Low Regional Airport, submitted comments on March 3, 2014, 

stating that he concurred with Great Lakes’ request to include Denver as a hub from which to 

serve Show Low. 
- 2 -

Decision

We will approve Great Lakes’ request, which meets the three conditions necessary for approval 

under authority assigned under 14 CFR Part 385.12(k)(3) of the Department’s Regulations: (1) 

the alternate service pattern is equal or greater than that determined to be essential; (2) the 

community does not object to the alternate service pattern; and (3) the alternate service pattern 

will not increase Great Lakes’ subsidy.

This Order is issued under authority delegated in 14 CFR Part 385.12k(3).

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We hereby approve the alternate service pattern requested by Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., to 

serve Show Low, Arizona, from the hubs of Denver (via Farmington, New Mexico), 

Los Angeles, and Phoenix effective March 9, 2014 through April 30, 2015;

2. This docket will remain open until further order of the Department; and

3. The Department will serve a copy of this Order on the Mayor of Show Low, the manager of 

Show Low Regional Airport, and Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this Order under the Department’s 

Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.31(a), must file such petitions within seven (7) days after the 

date of service of this Order.

This Order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not 

preclude its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at

www.regulations.gov
**** **Exhibit
      23.0**




**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (File No. 333-127350) of Colonial Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated March  16 ,
      200 7 ,
      relating to the consolidated financial statements, appearing in the Annual
      Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 200 6 .




/s/
                Beard Miller Company LLP


Beard
      Miller Company LLP


Paoli ,
      Pennsylvania


March
      23 ,
      200 7
EXHIBIT 10.23 

Change in Control AgreementAmendment

	Effective October 4, 2004, this Amendment amends theChange in Control Agreement (the "Agreement"), entered into as of July17, 2000 by and between Salem Jamil, an individual ("Executive") andCorio, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

	For good and valuable consideration, the receipt andsufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.  Section 1.  Section 1 of the Agreement is herebydeleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"1.  	Benefits Upon a Change in Control.  If (i) duringthe term of this Agreement****and while Executive remains an employee of theCompany, the Company shall be subject to the consummation of a Change in Controland (ii) within one (1) year following such Change in Control the Companyterminates the employment of Executive involuntarily and without BusinessReasons or a Constructive Termination occurs, then in such case Executive shallbe entitled to receive the following:  (A) Executive's base salary andvacation accrued through the Termination Date, (B) vesting of all outstandingstock options and other equity arrangements subject to vesting and held byExecutive through the Termination Date that had vested as of the TerminationDate, plus acceleration of an additional twelve (12) months of vesting of suchoptions and other equity arrangements, (C) base salary continuance, excludingany rights to a bonus and any payment rights other than base salary, for sixmonths after the Termination Date, and (D) to the extent required by COBRA only,continuation of group health benefits pursuant to the Company's standardprograms in effect at the Termination Date, for a period of not less than 18months (or such longer period as may be required by COBRA), provided thatExecutive makes the necessary conversion and payments."

2.  Section 6.   Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in itsentirety and replaced with the following:

"6.	Term of Agreement.  This Agreement shall commence as ofthe date first set forth above and shall continue until the date (the"Termination Date") which is the earlier of (i) the date thatExecutive ceases to be an employee of the Company, for any reason, and (ii)December 31, 2007.  Any benefits accruing to Executive under Section 1 hereofprior to or upon the Termination Date shall survive termination of theAgreement, and any obligations of Executive under Sections 1, 4 and 5 hereofshall survive any such termination."

The remaining provisions of the Agreementremain in full force and effect.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed thisAgreement, in the case of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of theday and year first above written.

			

COMPANY

	

CORIO, INC.

			

By:   /s/  GEORGE KADIFA

George Kadifa
President and CEO
**				

EXECUTIVE**
	

    /s/ SALEM JAMIL

Salem Jamil
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Signature Page to Change in Control AgreementAmendment]
#### Jessie GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28720.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1957.

*825No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The record *on*appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December
      31,
      2007 (the “Report”) of Kandi Technologies, Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Hu Xiaoming,
      President and Chief Executive Officer and Zhu Xiaoying, Chief Financial Officer,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/
                Hu XiaomingHu
                XiaomingPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer/s/
                Zhu XiaoyingZhu
                XiaoyingChief
                Financial Officer





October
      3, 2008
Exhibit 31.2  SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  I, Steven D. Weatherly, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IDI Global, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 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 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 officer(s) 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 function):  (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 control over financial reporting.    Date: May 15, 2007  /s/ Steven D. Weatherly Steven D. Weatherly, Consultant performing certain services for the Company commonly performed by a Chief Financial Officer