alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENYI XIONG,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71021

Agency No. A087

- 886

- 462

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

Wenyi Xiong , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying h is application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 71021

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review f or substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings

, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinatio ns created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034,

1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review

.

We do not consider the materials Xiong references in his opening brief that

are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64

(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies as to when Xiong first learned about Christianity, the date

of his alleged persecution, the number of times the police interrogated him , the

church es he a ttend ed in the U nited States, and his occupation in China

. See id. at

1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances). Xiong ’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See

Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 ( 9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible

testimony, in this case, Xiong ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Xiong’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and Xiong does not point to any other evidence in the3 16

- 71021

record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce nce of a public official in China. See

id. at 1156

- 57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 24-0119

IN THE MATTER OF

B.D.,

Youth in Need of Care.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant is granted an extension of time

until May 31, 2024 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2024

04/18/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0119
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Douglas J. Cahill, President and Chief Executive Officer of Doane Pet CareCompany, hereby certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Doane Pet CareCompany; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we 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 theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal controls over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
Date: March 11, 2004 /s/ DOUGLAS J. CAHILLDouglas J. CahillPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDoane Pet Care Company
**EXHIBIT 10.27**

**SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN**

On May 31,2005, the Board of Directors of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the “Company”)approved a compensation program for non-employee directors. The cashcompensation for non-employee directors is set forth below:

·       $20,000per year for serving as a board member with no committee assignments;

·       $23,750 per year forserving as a board member, and on one committee other than the audit committee;

·       $27,500per year for serving as a board member, and on the audit committee;

·       $27,500per year for serving as a board member, and on two committees other than theaudit committee;

·       $31,250per year for serving as a board member, and on the audit committee and oneother committee; or

·       $37,500per year for serving as a board member, and as chairman of the audit committee.

Directors also areeligible to be reimbursed for reasonable out-of pocket expenses incurred inconnection with attendance at board of director or committee meetings. Non-employeedirectors receive equity compensation under the Company’s Amended and Restated1997 Stock Incentive Plan as set forth below:

·       50,000shares upon commencement of board service; and

·       20,000shares annually thereafter.

Each option grant vests over a four-year period with25% of the number of options vesting one year from the date of grant andmonthly thereafter at the rate of 2.0833% for each month of service completedby the director.

----
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**955 KA 15-00924**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
DAROLD D. PAGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (THERESA L. PREZIOSO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
NIAGARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), entered May 4, 2015. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EX-31

     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF JAMES H. ALEXANDER

                 RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, James H. Alexander, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
World Am Communications, 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 small business issuer as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted pursuant to extended compliance
period] 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 my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

(b)  [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report my 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 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.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control over financial
reporting.


Dated: May 24, 2005                    /s/ James H. Alexander
                                       James H. Alexander, President
TIMOTHY DAVIS

Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

CITY OF COLUMBUS, OH; MATTHEW BAKER, Individually and in his official capacity as a 

police officer of the City of Columbus, OH; LEVON MOREFIELD, Individually and in his 

official capacity as a police officer of the City of Columbus, OH; ANTHONY JOHNSON, 

Individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the City of Columbus, OH; 

ROBERT REFFITT, Individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the City of 

Columbus, OH; SEAN CONNAIR, Individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of 

the City of Columbus, OH; ERIC EVERHART, Individually and in his official capacity as a 

police officer of the City of Columbus, OH; ALAN BENNETT, Individually and in his official 

capacity as a police officer of the City of Columbus, OH; RYAN STEELE, Individually and in 

his official capacity as a police officer of the City of Columbus, OH 

Defendants - Appellants 

 Upon consideration of the appellants’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal herein 

pursuant to Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

 It is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and the appeal is dismissed. 

ENTERED PURSUANT TO RULE 45(a), 

RULES OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

Issued: December 30, 2022 

___________________________________

Case No. 22-3873

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ORDER

Case: 2:17-cv-00823-ALM-CMV Doc #: 164 Filed: 12/30/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 7265
#### Hugh Dixon et al., Respondents, v Altagracia Pena et al., Appellants.

[774 NYS2d 684]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 9, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants make no demonstration that the motion court substantively erred when it found plaintiffs’ opposition to their summary judgment motion sufficient to raise triable issues as to whether plaintiffs sustained serious injuries in the underlying automobile accident. Rather, they contend that plaintiffs’ opposition papers should have been disregarded by the motion court because they were not submitted within the time frame prescribed for such submissions *(see*CPLR 2214 [b]). This contention, however, was not raised in the motion court and is consequently unpreserved for our review. In any case, even if the contention were properly before us and possessed merit, an affirmance of the motion court’s denied of defendants’ summary judgment motion would still be required since defendants failed to meet their burden as movants to demonstrate prima facie that plaintiffs had not sustained serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The medical reports of plaintiffs’ treating physician and medical records, including MRI reports, submitted by defendants in putative support of their motion document plaintiffs’ treatment during the year following the accident and contain significant findings objectively indicative of serious injury attributable to the accident that are not dispositively addressed in the affirmations of defendants’ experts *(see Lowell v Peters,*3 AD3d 778 [2004]; *Aronov v Leybovich,*3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), each of the undersigned hereby 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) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,
                                                                and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information in the Report
                                                                fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                                                                and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|December 21, 2012 | /s/ Michael D. Pruitt  
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | Michael D. Pruitt      
|                  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |                        
|December 21, 2012 | /s/ Eric S. Lederer    
|                  | Eric S. Lederer        
|                  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Faraj Aalaei, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|Date: May 10, 2007 | Faraj Aalaei Chief Executive Officer
|------------------ | ------------------------------------

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 2, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00521

- CV

IN RE DDAV WATER, LL C

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

On July 31
, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus . Relator also filed a motion for stay of the trial court’ s July 31 , 201 9 “ Order Granting Defendant, DTB Investments, L. P. ’ s E mergency Motio n to Dissolve Temporary Restrain ing Order and Motion to Dismiss
, ” which this court granted on July 31 , 201 9

. After considering the petition and the record
, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought . Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). The stay imposed on July 31 , 2019 is LIFTED

. The motions filed by the real party in interest to lift this court’ s stay are DENIED AS MOOT. This court’ s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on August 2, 2019

.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 20019

- CI

- 15029, styled DDAV Water, LLC v. DTB Investments , L.P.
, pending in the 408th Judicial District Court, Be xar County, Texas, the Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2413

CHRISTIE WYATT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

IPKEYS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00223-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: May 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christie Wyatt, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Earl Barnsback, 

LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christie Wyatt appeals from the jury’s verdict in favor of 

IPKeys Technologies, LLC, on her claim that she was terminated 

in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (2012). We have 

considered Wyatt’s arguments and reviewed the district court 

record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. Wyatt v. IPKeys Technologies, 

LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00223-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 15, 2015). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-3.3                 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                        Certificate of Amendment to
                         Articles of Incorporation
                       For Nevada Profit Corporation
     (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)

1.  Name of corporation: World Am Communications, Inc.

2.  The articles have been amended as follows (provide article
numbers, if available):

Article IV: Shares of Stock

A.  Common Stock:  The corporation is authorized to issue 800,000,000
shares of common stock having $0.0001 par value.

B.  Class A Preferred Stock:  The corporation is authorized to issue
40,000,000 shares of Class A Preferred Stock having $0.0001 par value.

C.  Class B Preferred Stock:  The corporation is authorized to issued
40,000,000 shares of Class B Preferred Stock having $0.0001 pare value.

3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the
corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the
voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be
required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be
required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted
in favor of the amendment is: 81,410,995*

4.  Officer Signature (Required)


/s/  James H. Alexander
President

* If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or
any relative or other right given to any class or series of
outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote,
in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders
of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or
series affected by the amendment regardless of limitations or
restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and remit
the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
gss_ex10-13.htm




MOTOR OPERATED COMMERCIAL FOOD PREPARING MACHINES


 











K-TEC - Orem, UT USA














Trade Name(s): Blendtec.







Commercial Blender, Model No. ES-3. Model Nos. ICB, ABC followed by -3 to -7.







Commercial Electric Blenders, Model Nos. Series ABC-3, ABC-5, ABC-6, ABC-7, ES-3, ICB-3, ICB- 4, ICB-5, ICB-6, ICB-7 (may be installed on counter, stand).







Commercial Electric Blenders/Dispensers, Model Nos. BDI-, BI- followed by 501, 503, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 513, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520. Model Nos. BD8-501, BD8-502, D4, D8.







Commercial Electric Blender with Ice Dispenser & Optional Refrigeration & Juice Dispenser, MegaBlender, Model Nos. MB-1, MB-2.







Long John Silver's Commercial Batter Mixer, Model No. LJ-1.







Self-Serve Smoothie Machine, Model No. S01A.












Evaluated to the following...


A representative sample of the listed devices have been tested, investigated and found to comply with the requirements of the Standard(s) for Motor Operated Commercial Food Preparing Machines (UL- 763) and are identified with the ETL Listed Mark.