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

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Mike HP Kwon, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Axesstel, 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, inlight 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany 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 anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol 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 inthe 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: October 12, 2004 

/s/    Mike HP Kwon
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2326 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the US Commission 

on International Religious Freedom, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 

year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the 

US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 THE US COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL 

5 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, SALARIES AND EX6 PENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for the US Commission on International Religious 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2326 IH

1 Freedom, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $4,500,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties III 1997 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317331
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       38
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          13,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,099
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   909
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       152
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





SECTION
      906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SS.1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
      Duquette, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 results of operations of the Company.





*May
                20, 2008*
            */s/
                David Duquette**Name:
                David Duquette**Title:
                Chief Executive Officer and**Chief
                Financial Officer*




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to Company and will be retained by Company
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### Cary *et al. v.*Lovell Manuf’g Co., Limited.

*(Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.*

May 29, 1889.)

Costs—Depositions.

A number of depositions, taken in one or the other of two suits in other districts, brought by the present plaintiffs against other defendants for the infringement of the same patent, having been introduced by written agreement into this case, and read at the hearing “with the same force and effect as if taken in this suit, ” a solicitor’s fee of 02.50 for each of said depositions is not here taxable under section 824, Rev. St.

l'n Equity. *Sur*exceptions to clerk’s taxation of costs.

*John K. Halloclc*and *W. BaJcewéll & Sons,*for exceptants.

*Witter & Kenyon, contra.*

Before McKennan and Acheson, JJ.

Per Curiam.

By written agreement a number of depositions, taken in one or the other of two suits in other districts, brought by these plaintiffs against different defendants for the inftingeriient of the same patent, wore introduced into this case, and read at the hearing thereof, “with the same force and'effect as if taken in this suit,” and the question now arising is whether a solicitor’s fee for each of said depositions is here taxable under section 824 Rev. St., which allows to the solicitor “for each deposition taken and admitted in evidence in a cause two dollars and fifty cents.” Upon a like state of facts, Justice Blatcheord, in *Wooster*v. *Handy,*23 Fed. Rep. 49, decided against the allowance of the fee, and so, also, did Judge Severens, in *Winegar v. Cahn,*29 Fed. Rep. 676. We concur in this conclusion, which, we think, is in harmony with both the letter and the spirit of the statute. By its express terms the deposition must be “taken” as well as “admitted in evidence” in the cause, and the manifest intention of the -statute was to compensate for the labor and expense of taking the deposition. Wo therefore sustain the exceptions to the allowance by the clerk of §102.50 solicitor’s fees for depositions taken in the suits of *Cary & Moen*v. *Domestic Spring-Bed Co.*and *Same*v. *R. H. Wolff & Co.*But the excejition to the allowance of §53.20, traveling expenses, etc., incurred by the master, is overruled.
Order filed November 8 , 20 1 1

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 11

- 00472

- CV

____________

MICHAEL THIBODEAUX, Appellant

V.

JONATHAN R. CAMPBELL AND PRESTON J. JULIAN, Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 980917



### O R D E R

Appellant = s brief was due originally due July 25, 2011. The court granted two

extensions of time to file the brief until October 17, 2011. To date, appellant has not filed

a br ief or a further motion for extension of time.

Unless appellant files a brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was

late, with the c lerk of this c ourt on or before November 28 , 20 1 1 , the c ourt will dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32




<PAGE>




                                  CERTIFICATION

   In connection with the Annual Report of Whispering Oaks International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Dr. Ricardo
Moro, President and Chief Executive Officer and Dr. Gerald Wittenberg, Principal
Financial 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 to
the best of their 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 the Company.


Date:  March 30, 2007           By: /s/ Ricardo Moro
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Dr. Ricardo Moro - President and Chief
                                          Executive Officer


                                By: /s/ Gerald Wittenberg
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Dr. Gerald Wittenberg, Principal Financial
                                     Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATURES WAY MARINE, LLC, )

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action No. 12-0316-CG-M

EVERCLEAR OF OHIO, LTD. and 

NIRK MAGNATE HOLDING 

CORP.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ objections (Doc. 

158), to Plaintiff’s amended list of damages (Doc 148), and Plaintiff’s response 

(Doc. 164)

Defendants first object to the increase in the claim for lost profits from 

$441,702.00 given in Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses to the current figure 

of “approximately $550,000.00.” When the defendants deposed plaintiff’s

Executive Vice President concerning the claim for lost profits on February 7, 

2014, Plaintiff agreed to provide a supplementation of its calculation for lost 

profits as well as backup for the calculations that were to be completed by the 

witness. Although the witness provided the new calculations to counsel for 

Plaintiff shortly after the deposition, due to error and inadvertence Plaintiff’s 

counsel failed to forward the information to Defendants’ counsel until August 

13, 2014. 

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 189 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendants argue that Rule 37(c)(1), FED.R.CIV.P requires that the 

additional damage amount may not be use as evidence because the failure to 

disclose or supplement was neither substantially justified nor harmless. 

Plaintiff submits that the failure was substantially justified because it was 

not willful. However, 

Substantial justification requires justification to a degree that 

could satisfy a reasonable person that parties could differ as to 

whether the party was required to comply with the disclosure 

request. The proponent’s position must have a reasonable basis 

in law and fact. The test is satisfied if there is a genuine 

dispute concerning compliance.

Chapple v. Alabama, 174 F.R.D. 698 (M.D.AL 1997)(citations omitted). There 

is no contention here that disclosure was not required, and therefor the 

failure to disclose was not substantially justified.

The Court finds, however, that because the disclosure was made more 

than three months prior to trial, and because Plaintiff offered to provide the 

backup documentation and make the witness available for further 

questioning under oath concerning the provided information, Defendants had 

ample opportunity the make the late disclosure harmless. If Defendants 

failed to take advantage of Plaintiff’s offer in that regard, they cannot now 

make a case that any harm they suffer is because of the tardy disclosure. 

Accordingly, the motion to exclude contained in Defendants’ objection 

to the amended list of damages is DENIED.

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 189 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 3
3

The remaining objections to the amended list of damages are based on 

arguments that should be made to the jury at trial and are not legal 

questions for the Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 189 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.10 2Q2015








Exhibit 10.10
Grants under 2001 Plan
SCHEDULE 1
Amendment to Option Award Agreement


Section 3.6 of your Option Award Agreement is amended to read as follows:


3.6    Change in Control.  Notwithstanding Section 3.5 above, in the event of a Change in Control followed within two years by (A) a termination of the Grantee’s employment by the Company without Cause, or (B) initiation of the Good Reason Process by written notice of a Good Reason condition by the Grantee to the Company which subsequently results in a termination of the Grantee’s employment by the Grantee for Good Reason, any unvested portion of the Option shall become immediately vested and exercisable as of the date of the Grantee’s termination of employment.  For purposes of this Agreement, (1) Change in Control shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan modified as follows: (i) in Plan Section 2.6(a), “50 percent” shall be replaced by “35 percent”, (ii) the final proviso of Plan Section 2.6(a) that begins “and provided, however” shall be deleted, and (iii) Plan Section 2.6(d) shall be deleted; (2) Good Reason shall mean that Grantee has complied with the Good Reason Process following the occurrence of any of the following events or actions: (i) any material reduction in Grantee’s base salary, unless a similar reduction is made in the base salary of all similarly situated executives, (ii) any material reduction in Grantee’s authority, duties or responsibilities, (iii) any material change in the geographic location at which Grantee must perform his duties, or (iv) any material breach of any written agreement with the Company by the Company; and (3) Good Reason Process shall mean that (i) Grantee reasonably determines in good faith that a Good Reason condition has occurred, (ii) Grantee notifies the Company in writing of the first occurrence of the Good Reason condition within 60 days of the first occurrence of such condition, (iii) Grantee cooperates in good faith with the Company’s efforts, for a period not less than 30 days following such notice (the “Cure Period”) to remedy the condition, (iv) notwithstanding such efforts, the Good Reason condition continues to exist, and (v) Grantee terminates employment within 60 days after the end of the Cure Period; provided, however, if the Company cures the Good Reason condition during the Cure Period, Good Reason shall be deemed not to have occurred.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                                                CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED


                    AMENDMENT 1 TO MASTER PURCHASE AGREEMENT


        This Amendment 1 to Master Purchase Agreement (this "Amendment") is
effective as of January 22, 2002 (the "Effective Date"), by and between
HANDSPRING INC. a Delaware corporation having its principal business at 189
Bernardo Avenue, Mountain View, California 94043, USA ("Handspring"), and
WAVECOM INC., a Delaware corporation with a place of business at 610 West Ash
Street, CA 92101, USA ("Wavecom") and amend the Master Purchase Agreement dated
June 12, 2001 (the "Agreement").

        Handspring and Wavecom are collectively referred to herein as the
"Parties" and individually as a "Party".


                                    RECITALS

WHEREAS, Wavecom and Handspring have entered into the Agreement for the purchase
by Handspring or its Authorized Manufacturing Partner, as defined in the
Agreement, of the Product, as defined in the Agreement,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, Handspring or its Authorized Manufacturing
Partner commits to purchase [*] units of the Products in the first [*] months
starting from the date the Working GPRS Software, as defined in the Agreement,
is available to Handspring or the Authorized Manufacturing Partner (the
"Commitment"),

WHEREAS, Wavecom and Handspring have agreed to reduce such Commitment and
consequently to modify the terms of the Agreement only to the extent hereinafter
defined,

THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:


ARTICLE 1

Wavecom and Handspring hereby agree to reduce the Commitment from [*] units to
[*] units.

Such Commitment shall apply to any and all terms and obligations as per the
Agreement.

HANDSPRING, INC.                               WAVECOM INC.

By::    /s/ Michael Gallucci                   Name:   /s/ H. Neoman

Title:  VP, Manufacturing                      Title:  COO

Date:   1/29/02                                Date:   1/22/2002


* Confidential treatment has been requested for certain portions of this
document pursuant to an application for confidential treatment sent to the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Such portions are omitted from this filing
and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier Ivan VEGA-MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51290.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 2, 2008.

Mara A. Blatt, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Javier Ivan Vega-Murillo (Vega) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following removal. Vega argues that his 41-month sentence was unreasonable as a matter of law because this court’s use of a presumption of reasonableness for sentences imposed within the properly calculated guidelines range effectively reinstates the mandatory guidelines regime struck down in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). This argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court. *See Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Vega additionally asserts that his sentence was unreasonable on its merits. He contends that the sentence was unreasonable because it was the result of the tripling of his offense level due to his prior conviction even though the nature and circumstances of his offense did not show that he was a dangerous criminal. He maintains that this led to his offense level overstating the seriousness of his offense.

A sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to great deference. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). Little explanation is needed when a court imposes a sentence within the advisory range. *Id.*at 519. In reviewing such a sentence, we merely ask whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing it. *Rita,*127 S.Ct. at 2465. Vega has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him within the properly calculated guidelines range. *See id.*at 2469.

Vega also maintains the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in the light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 *745(5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.