alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 46 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 46

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny 
 United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to 
  parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe 
               permanent allegiance to the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2007

 Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Goode, Mr. Deal of Georgia, and Mr. Akin) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny 
 United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to 
  parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe 
               permanent allegiance to the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,  That the following article is 
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
several States within seven years after the date of its submission for 
ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1.  Any person born after the date of the ratification of 
this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of 
the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the 
United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any 
State solely by reason of birth in the United States.
    ``Section 2.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### W. T. Beard v. J. H. Miller.

(No. 6724.)

Appeal from Fannin County.

E. B. Semple, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 76. *Certiorari; petition for need not set out verbatim the testimony at the trial; substance of all the evidence sufficient.*Appellant moved to dismiss the *certiorari*upon the ground that all the evidence, in substance, adduced on the trial in the justice’s court must be alleged in the petition for *certiorari;*that the conclusions of the pleader will not suffice, and that this was not done. The petition need not set out *verbatim*the testimony of each witness, nor the exact contents of written documents. If the petition gives the substance of the evidence, from which it appears that injustice has been done, alleging that no other evidence was before the court, it is sufficient. We are of opinion that the petition is sufficient in this respect.

§ 77. *Damages; remittitur of.*Appellant’s third assignment: The court erred in accepting defendant’s *re*
      *118
      *mittitur*of the excessive damages awarded by the jury, such damages being entirely a question for the jury and not a question of law for the judge.” The appellee remitted all the damages, so called, awarded by the jury. This he had the right to do, whether the amount recovered by him was damages or in the nature of an offset. [Railway Co. v. Wilkes, 68 Tex. 617.]

April 19, 1890.

§ 78. *Charge of court; error in without injury.*Appellant’s fourth assignment: While it is true that the court erred in charging the jury “that the measure of damages in case of a verdict for defendant was the difference between the value of the mule as diseased when sold and the price agreed to be paid by appellant,” the true measure being the value of the mule with her defects when sold and her value as warranted, still, if the market value was the same as the price agreed upon, there was no injury to appellant. [Jacoby v. Brigman (Tex.), 7 S. W. Rep. 366.]

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the accompanying AnnualReport of Kaya Holdings, Inc.. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas J. Bohannon, Chief Officer (principalfinancial executive of the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of our knowledge, that:

 

 

Dated: April 15, 2015
#### B. R. Cobb v. D. C. Brown.

(No. 5436.)

June 22, 1887.

Error from Jack County.

Swan & Bomar, counsel for plaintiff in error.

No counsel appeared for defendant in error.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 314. *Citation served after return day is invalid service.*Brown recovered judgment by default against Cobb. Citation in the suit was served upon Cobb October 7, 1S85, two days *after*said citation was returnable. *Held:*Such service was void. A citation must bo served before the return day thereof. [R. S. art. 1228.] At the date of the service of said citation it was impossible for the defendant to appear and answer on the day named therein for him to do so. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 83.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### Walter and Carolyn DOUGLAS, individually and on Behalf of their Minor Daughter, Shametha Douglas v. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, Michelle M. Zembo, M.D., and Charles B. Hill, M.D.

No. 2010-C-2451.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Douglas, Carolyn; Douglas, Shametha; Douglas, Walter et al.; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 95-1190; to the *11Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0213.

Denied.
#### Conrad N. FREUND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth MITAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-1915.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 20, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

*114Daniel C. Summerlin, Woods, Rogers & Hazelgrove, P.L.C., Roanoke, VA, for appellant. Michaux Raine, III, Raine & Per-due, P.L.C., Rocky Mount, VA, for appel-lee.

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Mitan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and entering a civil judgment against him for $147,056.67. On appeal, Mitan only alleges that the district court erred in finding that it had personal jurisdiction over him; he raises no issues related to the amount or propriety of the judgment itself. 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. *Freund v. Mitan,*No. CA-98-107-7 (W.D.Va. June 7, 1999) (denying motion to dismiss for reasons as stated from the bench). 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.*
Exhibit
32.3
  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 of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harry J. White,
Jr., Chief Accounting 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 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 result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Dated:  March
      11, 2008
              
              /s/ HARRY J. WHITE,
      JR.Harry
      J. White, Jr.Chief
      Accounting Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 23.1

               


    Exhibit 23.1 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form  S-8  No.  333-56759)  pertaining  to the  Hagler  Bailly,  Inc.  Employee
Incentive and  Non-Qualified  Stock Option and Restricted  Stock Plan and to the
incorporation  by reference  therein of our report  dated March 12,  1999,  with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hagler Bailly, Inc. included
in the Annual  Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended  December  31, 1998,  filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Vienna, VA
March 29, 1999
Exhibit 10.82  AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT  This
Amendment No. 2 (this Amendment), dated as of January 12,
2009, amends that certain Severance Agreement (the Agreement) entered
into on April 4, 2008, by and between Force Protection, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the Company), and Damon Walsh (the Executive).  WHEREAS, in
order to correct a scriveners error in the language in Section 5 of the
Agreement, the Company and the Executive desire to enter into this Amendment to
amend certain provisions of the Agreement.  NOW, THEREFORE,
for and in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and
agreements in the Agreement and herein, the Company and the Executive hereby
agree as follows:  1.Capitalized Terms. 
Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have the
meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.  2.Section 5 of the Agreement is amended in
its entirety to read as follows:  5.Payments Upon Non-Qualifying
Termination of Employment.If the Executives employment with the
Company shall terminate by reason of a Nonqualifying Termination, then the
Company shall pay to the Executive (or the Executives beneficiary or estate)
within thirty (30) days following the Date of Termination, a lump-sum cash
amount equal to the Accrued Amounts (other than the amount described in Section 3(a)(ii) if
the Executive is terminated by the Company for Cause) and provide the Other
Benefits.  3.Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed (including by facsimile transmission confirmed
promptly thereafter by actual delivery of executed counterparts) in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  4.Governing Law.  This
Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with,
the internal laws of the State of South Carolina without regard to the
principle of conflicts of laws.  5.Headings.  Section headings
are for convenience only and shall not be considered a part of this Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment No. 2 to
be executed, effective as of the date first
written above.   FORCE PROTECTION, INC.By:
  /s/ Lenna Ruth MacdonaldName: Lenna Ruth MacdonaldTitle: Chief Strategy
  Officer, General Counsel & Corporate SecretaryEXECUTIVEBy:
  /s/ Damon WalshName: Damon WalshTitle: Executive Vice President, M-ATV Program Director
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

 

 

I, Steven Purcell,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A of AlternativeResources Corporation;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant andhave:

 

(a)   Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

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

 

(c)   Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a)   All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 

 

 

 
| Date:   January 28, 2004 |   | /s/ Steven Purcell      |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                          |   | Steven Purcell          |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer |
(a)      Exhibit 11 -  COMPUTATION OF BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE AND
                       DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended      Three Months Ended
                                                   March 31, 1999           March 31, 1998
                                                   --------------           --------------
                                               (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

<S>                                                  <C>                    <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

Net income available to common shareholders          $    2,113             $    1,831
                                                     ==========             ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding            5,383,978              5,560,540
                                                     ==========             ==========

Basic earnings per common share                      $      .39             $      .32
                                                     ==========             ==========


DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

Net income available to common shareholders          $    2,113             $    1,831
                                                     ==========             ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding            5,383,978              5,560,540

Add:  Dilutive effects of assumed exercises of
       stock options and warrants                       353,736                682,957

Weighted average common and dilutive potential
       Common shares outstanding                      5,737,714              6,243,497
                                                     ==========             ==========

Diluted earnings per common share                    $      .37             $      .29
                                                     ==========             ==========
</TABLE>



Note:             The share and per share information  disclosed above have been
                  retroactively adjusted to reflect the 10% stock dividends paid
                  on August 31, 1998.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Joseph V. GreenName:
    
    Joseph V. GreenTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    November 9, 2005
#### Melvin MOYA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D11-1188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 3, 2011.

Melvin Moya, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, SUAREZ, and SALTER, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Melvin Moya appeals from an order denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) requesting credit for additional jail time served prior to sentencing. We reverse.

Moya maintains that jail records establish his entitlement to 281 pre-sentencing days served, and that he was credited with only fifty-five days for time served. On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the post-conviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), and (D). Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. *Varela v. State,*29 So.3d 398, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). If the trial court once again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts, including transcripts or jail cards, that conclusively show that the appellant is not entitled to the credit for time served as sought.

Reversed and remanded.
##### 



LUMINEX CORPORATION
FORM OF RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT
 [employee]
    Grant of Restricted Share Unit Award
 [number]
   Vesting and Payment




---



##### 



Dividend Equivalents; No Voting Rights
  No Right to Continued Service
  Withholding of Taxes
  2




---



##### 



Modification of Agreement
  Severability
  Governing Law
  Successors in Interest
  Resolution of Disputes
  Notices
  To the Company:
    
    Luminex Corporation12212 Technology Blvd.Austin, TX 78727Attn: Corporate SecretaryTo the Grantee:
    
    The address then maintained with respect to the Grantee in the Companys
records.
 3




---



##### 



LUMINEX CORPORATIONBy: GRANTEE:Please Print GRANTEE:Signature 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATION OF UNIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., PREVIOUSLY
FILED BY THE COMPANY WITH THE COMMISSION, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FILING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         664,397
<SECURITIES>                                 1,789,237
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,316,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,041
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,955,229
<PP&E>                                       1,410,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 995,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,758,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,685,651
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        14,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,069
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,758,341
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,089,947
<CGS>                                        1,322,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,322,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,492,968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                268,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            252,345
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   252,345
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      MEDICARE CUTS ARE A BAD IDEA

                                 ______

                           HON. SHERROD BROWN

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, there is an old country and western 
song that goes, ``She got the gold mine, and I got the shaft.'' The 
Republican budget would give the gold mine to wealthy special interests 
and give the shaft to America's elderly--$300 billion in tax breaks, 
$300 billion in Medicare cuts.
  The Republicans indignantly cry that these are not really cuts, they 
are only slowing the growth of Medicare. Tell that to the literally 
millions of people who depend on Medicare in Ohio, and Pennsylvania, 
and California, and all over this country, who will have $3,500 more 
taken out of their pocket over the next 7 years in higher premiums, 
deductibles, and copayments. Tell those people that these are not 
really cuts.
  The cuts in services which will pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest 
Americans, tax breaks for special interests, tax breaks for people who 
do not need these kinds of tax breaks--to people with the highest 
income in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I support Medicare and ensuring that older Americans 
have access to health care services when they need them from the doctor 
of their choice. As Republicans move to make these cuts in Medicare, 
they are talking about rationing health care and limiting seniors' 
ability to choose their doctor.
  We should reject that, Mr. Speaker. We should reject this kind of 
thinking. It is not good for America's elderly. It is not good for the 
American people.

                          ____________________
```