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

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I,Joseph Ram, Chief Executive Officer of InfoSonics Corporation, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InfoSonics Corporation;

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   | /s/ Joseph  Ram                 |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|               |   | Joseph  Ram, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
STATE v. WILSON

No. COA04-1120.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CRS239026).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. HARRIS

No. COA04-1064.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Forsyth (02CRS10092, 02CRS51618).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jasper Rutledge, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 321]

Appeal by the People (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), dated February 28, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated April 8, 2003, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, and (3) from a “Corrected Order” of the same court dated May 2, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 28, *11262003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 8, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 8, 2003, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 2, 2003, is dismissed as academic.

Contrary to the People’s contentions, from his vantage point of “50 yards at the most” away, the arresting officer’s alleged observation of the defendant, seated in a parked car at night, smoking *something,*provided the officer with no basis to approach the defendant’s car *(see generally People v McIntosh,*96 NY2d 521 [2001]; *People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181 [1992]; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210 [1976]). “In determining the legality of an encounter under *De Bour*and *Hollman,*it has been crucial whether a nexus to conduct existed, that is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information. The fact that an encounter occurred in a high crime vicinity, without more, has not passed *De Bour*and *Hollman*scrutiny” *(People v McIntosh, supra*at 526-527). Here, the officer had no objective, credible reason to approach the car. His testimony that he could discern, based upon the “dim[ness]” and long duration of the “glow” of the item being smoked, that it was a marijuana cigarette and not a tobacco cigarette, was incredible as a matter of law, and tailored to overcome constitutional objections *(see People v Lewis,*195 AD2d 523, 523-524 [1993]; *People v Lebron,*184 AD2d 784, 787 [1992]; *People v Miret-Gonzalez,*159 AD2d 647, 649-650 [1990]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence seized from the car. Crane, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Millard Hugo TAYBRON, Jr.

No. 6P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Daniel Shatz, Wilmington, for Taybron.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 6th day of January 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of January 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

NEDIL ROBELO ZUNIGA

- NAVARRO,

a.k.a. Nedil Zuniga

- Navarro, a.k.a. Robelo Zuniga

- Navarro

- Nedil,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10310

D.C. No. 4:17

- cr

- 01922

- CKJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019 **

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Nedil Robelo Zuniga

- Navarro appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 3 0

- month sentence for illegal reentry of a

removed alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

. Pursuant to Anders v. California

,

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

JAN 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 10310

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Zuniga

- Navarro ’ s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have provided Zuniga

- Navarro the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Zuniga

- Navarro waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT
32.2





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








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES,
INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 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:  May
20, 2008





/s/
Antonio F. Uccello, III


Antonio
F. Uccello, III


Chief
Financial Officer
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00426-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.C. AND C.A.C., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-51560-00 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

In a letter dated June 2, 2015, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over the appeal 

because there did not appear to be an appealable order. We instructed appellant to file a letter 

brief addressing our concern. Appellant did not file a jurisdictional brief. Rather, she filed a 

motion to abate the appeal. In her motion, appellant informs the Court that proceedings in the 

trial court have been abated “until at least the fall of 2015,” and that she has determined that the 

orders appealed may not be final, appealable orders that dispose of all parties and issues. She 

asks the Court to abate the appeal until resolution of the matters pending in the trial court. 

This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those 

interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and claims. 

See id. 
 –2– 

Appellant appeals from two orders signed by the trial court on March 2, 2015 that ruled 

on objections to summary judgment evidence and granted a motion for partial summary 

judgment. The partial summary judgment did not resolve all claims. We decline appellant’s 

request in her motion that we abate the appeal until resolution of the matters pending in the trial 

court. 

Because the orders appealed are neither final nor appealable interlocutory orders, this 

Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

150426F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.C. AND 

C.A.C., CHILDREN 

No. 05-15-00426-CV 

 On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas. 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-51560-00. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart, 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Douglas Brian Cannon recover his costs of this appeal 

from appellant Susan Elizabeth Cannon. 

Judgment entered June 23, 2015.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

October 9, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00423

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D. R. J., A MINOR CHILD,

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018PA01665 John D. Gabriel Jr. , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal o f the trial court’s order terminating appellant ’s parental rights. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on October 5 , 2020

. On October 5 , 2020
, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file her brief.

The disposition of this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in r ule 6.2 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Accordingly, this appeal is required t o be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed. Id

.

The motion is GRANTED, and appellant ’s b rief must be filed no later than October 26

, 2020

. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 26, 2016

a0407 

# Order

Clerk July 26, 2016

151680

PILGRIM’S REST BAPTIST CHURCH,

a/k/a PILGRIM’S REST MISSIONARY

BAPTIST CHURCH, NATHAN MAYFIELD,

and STEPHON BLACKWELL,

Plaintiffs/Counter

- Defendants

- Appellees,

v SC: 151680

COA: 318797

Kent CC: 11

- 012242

- CZ

ARTHUR PEARSON, SR.,

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff

- Appellant.

______________________________________/

On April 7 , 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to

appeal the April 23, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the

application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Arthur G. Soldinger, Respondent, v Elfriede Soldinger, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 815]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), entered January 13, 2005, which, after a jury trial, and upon the denial of her motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s case to dismiss the action, granted the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of abandonment for a period of one or more years.

*470Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (2) on the ground that the defendant had abandoned him for more than one year by locking him out of the marital residence in 1986 without justification and preventing him from returning ever since. Abandonment by lock-out occurs when one spouse changes the lock on the entrance door of the marital abode, or the place where he or she is living, thus effectively excluding the other spouse, unless the act is justified *(see Schine v Schine,*31 NY2d 113, 119 [1972]). The plaintiffs testimony failed to establish a prima facie case of abandonment by lock-out since, among other things, he admitted that he was not excluded from the marital residence, he retained the keys to the marital residence, and the defendant never changed the locks *(see Lind v Lind,*89 AD2d 518 [1982], *affd*58 NY2d 965 [1983]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion made at the close of the plaintiffs case to dismiss the action *(cf. Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth.,*41 NY2d 200, 202 [1976]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Annual Executive Bonus Plan Summary Sheet for
fiscal 2006


 


	
  Parameter

  	
   

  	
  Payout (linear)

  	
   

  	
  Weight

  	
   

  
	
  Revenue Target

  	
   

  	
  Payout Parameters ranging from 40% to 200% depending on results
  achieved

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
  %

  
	
  Operating Profit Target

  	
   

  	
  Payout Parameters ranging from 40% to 200% depending on results
  achieved

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
  %

  
	
  Individual
  Management Objectives

  	
   

  	
  Actual Achievement

  	
   

  	
  34

  	
  %

  



 


1
Air Force

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

37%

37%

4%

22%

$0.4

$0.3

$0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

43%

3%

54%

0%

Construcon: 11%

Research and

 Development: 7%

Service: 47%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 34%

Acve Duty: 36%

Civilian: 15%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 49%

T&L Sales

S&K Global Soluons

Ames Construcon

Project Resources

CM Manufacturing

CDM Smith

Calumet Shreveport Fuels

James Talco Construcon

Integrated Security Soluons

S&K Aerospace

$10.7 M

$8.5 M

$7.8 M

$7.1 M

$4.4 M

$4.3 M

$4.2 M

$3.5 M

$3.3 M

$3.2 M

Cascade

Lewis and Clark

Yellowstone

Missoula

Gallan

Flathead

Silver Bow

Park

Valley

Lincoln

County

5,195

1,637

657

421

278

219

151

85

79

69

Total*

3,226

ND

35

27

10

ND

10

ND

ND

ND

Acve Duty

   Military

860

343

15

24

ND

ND

19

ND

43

49

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

MONTANA

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Con ense Con ense Contractors (M=millions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$338.9 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

$338.9 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

9,165

TOTAL PERSONNEL

9,165

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Loc sonnel Loc sonnel Locaons

*Total also includes unif al also includes uniformed Na ormed Naonal Guar onal Guard and R d and Reserve units. e units.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

68 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Actve AF Guard Army Guard

MONTANA MONTANA

#49 #39 0.1% $468 #50 #48 #46

$0.5 B

SPENT IN STATE

1.0% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.2 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

9,165 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$0.3 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)(M=millions) (M=millions)

IDAHO

Cascade County

$60.5 M

Lake County

$16.0 M

Lincoln County

$14.1 M

Valley County

$10.0 M

Gallatn County

$8.9 M

Dawson County

$8.2 M

Missoula County

$8.1 M

Lewis and Clark County

$6.3 M

Flathead County

$5.6 M

Silver Bow County

$2.0 M

Cascade

Lake

Lincoln Valley

Gallatn

Dawson

Missoula

Lewis and Clark

Flathead

Silver Bow

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (K=thousands M=millions)

IDAHO

Cascade County

$238.5 M

Lewis and Clark County

$53.6 M

Yellowstone County

$11.0 M

Missoula County

$8.7 M

Silver Bow County

$5.1 M

Lincoln County

$4.4 M

Gallatn County

$4.3 M

Valley County

$4.1 M

Flathead County

$3.4 M

Park County

$747.5 K

Cascade Lewis and Clark

Yellowstone

Missoula

Silver Bow

Lincoln

Gallatn

Valley Flathead

Park

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 69
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5072 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5072

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Arcol Catalyst 3.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2008

Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Arcol Catalyst 3.

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

SECTION 1. ARCOL CATALYST 3.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00      Arcol Catalyst 3    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (provided for in                                                   31/2011
                         subheading
                         2931.00.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL RAY SHIFFLETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CR-91-33)

Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ray Shifflett, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Martin Sorenson,

Assistant United States Attorney, Jennie M. Waering, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Ray Shifflett appeals the district court’s order

denying his “motion for reconsideration of motion for subpoena of

stenotype notes.” We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Shifflett, No. CR-91-33 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 1999). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE v. Cerron Thomas HOOKS.

No. 89A00-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 29, 2005.

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Jonathan L. Megerian, Asheboro, for Cerron Thomas Hooks.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of August 2005 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File State's Response:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 1st day of October 2005 to file his/her response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of August 2005."