alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), I, Feng Gu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  November 13, 2009 /s/Feng Gu     Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of 1st Home
Buy & Sell Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samuel J. Alderson, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Samuel
      J. AldersonSamuel  J.
      Alderson
                Principal
      Financial Officer
                April
      8, 2008
#### James Buck v. State

No. 25491.

November 21, 1951.

Hon. Ira Gallaway, Judge Presiding.

*R. E. Murphey,*Coleman, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for possesing liquor for the purpose of sale and assessed a fine of $250.00 and 60 days in jail.

The state relied upon evidence obtained from certain prem*457ises in the city of Coleman, which consisted of two pints of liquor together with what appears to be the mere drainage of two empty bottles, the exact amount of which is not given. ,

The sufficiency of the affidavit for search warrant and of the search warrant itself is questioned because of the uncertainty of the party alleged to be in charge of and having control of the premises, the language complained of being reflected in the affidavit by the following quotation: “* * * and being the premises occupied by, in charge of and under the control of James Buck, and/or party or parties whose name or names and whose description or descriptions are unknown to affiants.” The same language is found in the search warrant.

The question raised here is identical with that raised in Cause No. 25427, W. R. Wood v. State of Texas discussed in the opinion by this court dated October 31, 1951, (Page 419 of this volume). We there held that the language naming the person in charge and possession of the premises was uncertain because of the disjunctive language. The affidavit and search warrant in the instant case are, for the same reason, fatally defective.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47243-47244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18672]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY


Leadership Conference on Medical Education in Substance Abuse

AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A White House Leadership Summit on Screening and Brief 
Intervention for Substance Abuse, bringing together leaders in the 
field of medical education and healthcare policy will be held on 
Friday, September 5th, at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC, starting at 9 a.m. and 
concluding at 3 p.m. The overall objectives of the White House Summit 
are to recognize the advances achieved and the remaining challenges by 
the field in the widespread use of screening and brief intervention 
procedures designed to identify and promote behavioral change in 
populations engaged in risky, problematic substance use, or that have

[[Page 47244]]

a diagnosis of abuse/addiction. Abuse of illicit drugs, alcohol, or 
prescription drugs adversely affects the health of millions of 
Americans. Wide-spread implementation of screening and brief 
intervention procedures is a public-health approach that can have a 
major, positive impact on public health.
    The specific conference objectives are: (1) To share with health 
care professionals the positive benefits of screening and brief 
interventions; (2) To alert them to recent, rapid advances in the field 
on Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) 
procedures for substance abuse in various healthcare settings; (3) to 
promote adoption and use of new reimbursable healthcare procedural 
codes (screening and brief intervention) and examine cost-effectiveness 
of implementing the codes; (4) To address best practices for performing 
these procedures in various healthcare settings; (5) To identify 
challenges to and enlist their support to devise strategies to 
implement and sustain system-wide change for implementing these 
preventive medicine procedures (6) To disseminate and expand on the 
cost-effectiveness and analysis of these procedures (7) To inform 
educators of new teaching materials for widespread dissemination of 
these practices. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting 
should telephone ONDCP's Leadership Conference on Medical Education 
telephone line at (202) 395-6750 to arrange building access.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Sivilli at (202) 395-5526.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Linda V. Priebe,
Assistant General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E8-18672 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3180-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCELLUS DERRELL BECKETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-682, CA-96-1797-2-8)

Submitted: March 24, 1998 Decided: April 3, 1998

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcellus Derrell Beckett, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In addition to the facts discussed by the district court,

the record overwhelmingly reveals that Appellant physically carried

his drugs, drug distribution paraphernalia, and weapon. See United

States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 653-54 (4th Cir. 1997).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court.* United States v. Beckett, Nos. CR-94-682;

CA-96-1797-2-8 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3877 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3877

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 24 (legislative day, September 20), 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States Post Office building located at 351 West 
  Washington Street in Camden, Arkansas, as the ``David H. Pryor Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DAVID H. PRYOR POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The United States Post Office building located at 
351 West Washington Street in Camden, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``David H. Pryor Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the building referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``David H. 
Pryor Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4213

To require the Secretary of the Interior to exchange certain lands located

in Hinsdale, Colorado.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Mr. MCINNIS (for himself and Mr. THORNBERRY) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior to exchange certain

lands located in Hinsdale, Colorado.

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

3 SECTION 1. LARSON AND FRIENDS CREEK EXCHANGE.

4 In exchange for conveyance to the United States of

5 an equal value of offered lands acceptable to the Secretary

6 of the Interior which lie within, or in proximity to, the

7 Handies Peak or Red Cloud Peak Wilderness Study Areas

8 or the Alpine Loop Backcountry Bi-way in Hinsdale Coun9 ty, Colorado, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to

10 Lake City Ranches, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership (in
2

HR 4213 IH

1 this section referred to as ‘‘LCR’’), approximately 560

2 acres of selected land located in the same county and gen3 erally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘Larson and Friends

4 Creek Exchange’’, dated June 1996. The exchange shall

5 be contingent upon LCR granting the Secretary a perma6 nent conservation easement on the approximate 440 acre

7 Larson Creek portion of the selected lands (as depicted

8 on the map) which limits future use of such lands to agri9 cultural, wildlife, recreational, or open space purposes.

10 The exchange shall also be subject to the standard ap11 praisal requirements and equalization payment limitations

12 set forth in section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and

13 Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716), and to re14 views and approvals relating to threatened species and en15 dangered species, cultural and historic resources, and haz16 ardous materials under other Federal laws. The costs of

17 such appraisals and reviews shall be paid by LCR. The

18 Secretary may credit such payments against the value of

19 the selected land, if appropriate, pursuant to section

20 206(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

21 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(f)).

Æ
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 26 81

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro na ldRay Cu rry ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. Jo hn Doe, 2 ndSh ift Int ak e Offi cer a t t he Sco ttCo un ty Jail on 7/ 17 /1 0

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee Den ni s C on ard , Sco ttCo un ty Sheri ff; Sco ttCo un ty Jail , Sco ttCo un ty Sheri ff;

Cl iff or d G. Teb bi tt , Sco ttCo un ty Sheri ff ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa- Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Jan ua ry

23 , 20 13 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

29 , 20 13 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Io wa in m at e Ro na ld Cu rry ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s adve rs e gr an t of 1 su m m ary jud gm en t in hi s 4 2 U
. S .C. § 19 83 ci vi l act io n al le gi ng a vi ol at io n of hi s Eig ht h Am en dm en t rig ht s. Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e Holde n v. Hir ne r , 66 3 F
. 3 d 33 6, 34 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), we co nc lu de th at su m m ar y jud gm en t was pro pe rly gran te d fo r th e reas on s s ta te d b y th e d is tri ctco urt. We als o co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e i t s di sc ret io n in de nyin g reco ns id erat io n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d S ta te s Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa . -2
-
#### QUEEN INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BLOMENSTIEL et al.

No. 1456.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 25, 1935.

St. Clair Adams, St. Clair Adams, Jr., and P. A. Bienvenu, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Chas. T. Wortham, of Donaldsonville, and Simmons, Simmons & Dolese, of Napoleon-ville, for appellees.

DORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action filed by defendants to plaintiff’s demand. The judgment was rendered and signed in open court at Donaldsonville, Ascension parish, La., on December 3, 1934. The minutes of the said court show that the last thing done in the said case was the rendition of the said judgment. There are no minutes showing an entry of an appeal. There is an order of appeal signed by the presiding judge, dated and signed at Convent, St. James parish, La., a separate and distinct parish from that parish wherein this case was tried and submitted, and which order was signed on January 13, 1935.

There appears no return wherein this motion and order of appeal was served on defendants. Code of Practice, arts. 581-583 provide that whenever a motion for an order of appeal is not made in open court, then the same must be served upon the appellee or opposing party. This is sacramental. Citizens National Bank of Hammond v. Kreko et al., 11 La. App. 471, 123 So. 410.

It is argued that this court should not dismiss this appeal in view of Act No. 234 of 1932. Our answer to this contention is that Act No. 234 of 1932 provides, amongst other provisions, that an appeal should not be dismissed for purely technical reasons, or wherein it is not the fault of appellant. But in this case, the fault is purely one of plaintiff-appel- ' lant; and no one else.

The motion signed by Judge Himel does not purport to have been received in open court at Donaldsonville, Ascension parish, but must be said to have been signed in chambers at Convent, St. James parish.;

The motion and order must have been prepared by plaintiff, with no request that defendants be cited, no citation to be issued, and must be laid at its door and not that of the clerk of court.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal herein taken be dismissed, at appellant’s costs.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Charles Thomas, Otherwise Called Thomas Charles, Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,897. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

October 25, 1966.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1966.

Milton J. Kolman, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE BRYANT. Not to be published in full.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 12
                             CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 000's OMITTED

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             FISCAL YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                 1997         1996         1995         1994           1993
                                 ----         ----         ----         ----           ----

<S>                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>            <C>    
Net Income (Loss) before       $10,031      $21,848      $32,604      ($11,352)      $ 7,695
    extraordinary gains
Fixed Charges                   26,237       26,262       27,792        30,202        28,645
                               -------      -------      -------      --------       -------
                               $36,268      $48,110      $60,396      $ 18,850       $36,340
                               =======      =======      =======      ========       =======


Fixed Charges

  Interest                     $22,823      $22,872      $25,071      $ 27,891       $25,947

  Interest re: Rentals           3,194        3,170        2,501         2,146         2,698

  Amortization of
    Deferred Debt Expense          220          220          220           165
                               -------      -------      -------      --------       -------
Total Fixed Charges            $26,237      $26,262      $27,792      $ 30,202       $28,645
                               =======      =======      =======      ========       =======

Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges               1.4 to 1     1.8 to 1     2.2 to 1      .62 to 1      1.3 to 1

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Feng Gu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  November 18, 2008 /s/Feng Gu     Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Henry L. SUMLING, Appellant. Henry L. SUMLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 69019, 69990.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Dec. 10, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 5, 1997.

Application to Transfer Denied March 25, 1997.

Kent Denzel, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his conviction by a jury of two counts of sale of a controlled substance near public housing in violation of § 195.218 RSMo 1994. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and record on appeal and find Defendant’s contentions on direct appeal to be without merit. We further find that an extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prec-edential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. Defendant’s judgment of conviction is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

*404The State concedes that Defendant’s *pro se*Rule 29.15 motion was timely filed and this is confirmed by our independent review of the record. The State urges, however, that the trial court’s dismissal of Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion may nevertheless be affirmed because the *pro se*motion was not “substantially in the form of Criminal Procedure Form 40” as required by Rule 29.15(b). We have received the motion and find that it is sufficient to apprise the trial court, this court and the State of movant’s intent to pursue relief under Rule 29.15. Therefore, it is sufficient to require the trial court to appoint counsel1 to prepare an amended motion and to address the issues raised on the merits. *See State v. White,*873 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Mo. banc 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand the motion cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1

. The trial court entered a finding that Defendant is indigent.
EXHIBIT 10.41

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO

TO THE

HEALTH NET, INC.

2006 EXECUTIVE OFFICER INCENTIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Health Net, Inc. 2006 Executive Officer Incentive Plan (the Plan) for the benefit of eligible
executive officers of the Company and its subsidiaries;

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to clarify that awards made
under the Plan are intended satisfy the short-term deferral exemption in accordance with Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1(b)(4); and

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has the power to amend the Plan pursuant to Article VII(1) thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Article VII(1) of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



| | 1. | By striking the last sentence of Article VI(2) and replacing it with the following:
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, all payments under the Plan shall be made no later
than March 15thfollowing the calendar year in which an incentive payment is earned. The Committee, in its sole discretion, may permit a
Participant to defer payment of an award under a deferred compensation plan or plans of the Company, as may be in effect from time to time, in accordance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code.



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Health Net, Inc. has caused this instrument to be signed on this 12th day of
November, 2008.



HEALTH NET, INC.By:

/s/ Karin MayhewName:

Karin MayhewTitle:

Senior Vice President, Organization Effectiveness