alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 3.4**

**CERTIFICATE OFAMENDMENT****OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED****CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF****HUDSON RESPIRATORY CARE INC.**

Charles A. French and Patrick Yount certify that:

1.          They are the duly elected and acting President and Secretary, respectively, of Hudson Respiratory Care Inc., a California corporation (the“Corporation”).

2.          The first sentence of section (a)of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Determination of the Corporation (the “Certificate of Determination”) is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

“The designation of such series of Preferred Stock is the 11 1⁄2 % Senior PIK Preferred Stock due 2010, $.01 par value, (the “Senior PIK Preferred Stock”), and the number of shares of such Senior PIKPreferred Stock is 800,000.”

3.          The last two sentences ofsection (d)(i) of the Certificate of Determination of the Corporation are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following: 

“Any dividend onthe Senior PIK Preferred Stock payable pursuant to this paragraph (d)(i) on or prior to April 15, 2004 shall be, at the option of the Company, payable (1) in cash or (2) through the issuance of a number of additional shares (including fractionalshares) of Senior PIK Preferred Stock (the “Additional Shares”) equal to the dividend amount divided by the Liquidation Preference of such Additional Shares. With respect to dividends payable after April 15, 2004, all dividends shall bepayable solely in cash.”

4.          Section (g)(ii)(A)(1) of theCertificate of Determination of the Corporation is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

“dividends on the Senior PIK PreferredStock are in arrears and unpaid and, in the case of dividends payable after April 15, 2004, are not paid in cash for six or more Dividend Periods (whether or not consecutive) (a “Dividend Default”);”

5.          The above amendment of the Certificate of Determination has been approved by theBoard of Directors of the Corporation.

6.          The foregoingamendment of the Certificate of Determination has been duly approved by the required vote of the shareholders of each class of stock of the Corporation in accordance with Section 903 of the California Corporations Code. The total number ofoutstanding shares of each class entitled to vote with respect to the amendment was 10,654,293 Common shares, 526,028 Senior PIK Preferred shares and 3,000 Junior Preferred shares. The number of shares voting in favor of the amendment equaled orexceeded the vote required. The percentage vote required was more than 50% of the common shares, more than 50% of the Senior PIK Preferred Shares and more than two-thirds of the Junior Preferred Shares.

 

We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the matters set forth in this certificate are trueand correct of our own knowledge.

Executed at Los Angeles, California on May 20, 2003.

 

 

 

 

 /s/CHARLES A. FRENCH

 

 

 

 

 

**Charles A. French, President**/s/ PATRICK YOUNT

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Patrick Yount, Secretary**
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Derek Bernard Howard, Appellant

No. 06-14-00007-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 37,809-

B). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment nunc pro tunc to 

correctly reflect that Tanya L. Reed represented the State in this case. As modified, the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Derek Bernard Howard, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 15, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 41.11 Who is eligible for financial assistance under this subpart? ( a ) A Tribal college or university is eligible for financial assistance under this subpart only if it: ( 1 ) Is governed by a board of directors or board of trustees, a majority of whom are Indians;
( 2 ) Demonstrates adherence to stated goals, a philosophy, or a plan of operation directed to meet the needs of Indians;
( 3 ) Has a student body that is more than 50 percent Indian (unless it has been in operation for less than one year);
( 4 ) Is either: ( i ) Accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary of Education to be a reliable authority with regard to the quality of training offered; or
( ii ) Is making reasonable progress toward accreditation according to such agency or association;
( 5 ) Has received a positive determination after completion of an eligibility study; and
( 6 ) Complies with the requirements of § 41.19.
( b ) Priority in grants is given to institutions that were in operation on October 17, 1978, and that have a history of service to Indian people.
### §8225. Female members: congressional review period for assignment to duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of submarines

(a) No change in the Department of the Navy policy limiting service on submarines to males, as in effect on May 10, 2000, may take effect until—

(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of the proposed change; and

(2) a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which either House of Congress is not in session) expires following the date on which the notice is received.

(b) No funds available to the Department of the Navy may be expended to reconfigure any existing submarine, or to design any new submarine, to accommodate female crew members until—

(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of the proposed reconfiguration or design; and

(2) a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which either House of Congress is not in session) expires following the date on which the notice is received.

(c) For purposes of this section, the continuity of a session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the Congress sine die.

(Added Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title V, §573(a)(1)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–136, §6035; renumbered §8225, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(7), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8225, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 503; Dec. 12, 1980, Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §504(9), 94 Stat. 2916; Sept. 29, 1988, Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, §1234(a)(1), 102 Stat. 2059, related to authorized strength of Air National Guard and Air National Guard of United States, exclusive of members on active duty, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1662(a)(3), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2988. See section 12002 of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6035 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
§ 582.5 How does an entity other than a tribe request to participate on a limited basis? ( a ) An individual, whether acting on his or her own behalf or as an agent of an entity, or an entity other than the tribe identified in § 582.2, may request to participate in an appeal of an ordinance disapproval on a limited basis by filing a submission with the Commission within 10 days of the filing of the notice of appeal.
( b ) The submission may contain supporting documentation, and shall state: ( 1 ) The individual's or entity's property, financial, or other interest at stake in the proceeding; and
( 2 ) The reason(s) why the Chair's decision should be upheld or reversed. The submission shall address the ordinance requirements under §§ 522.4, 522.5, 522.6, and 522.7 of this chapter.
( c ) The submission shall be served concurrently on the tribe consistent with § 580.4 of this subchapter. Failure to properly serve the tribe may be a basis for denying limited participation.
( d ) Within 10 days after service of the submission, any party to the appeal may file a brief and supporting material in response to the submission.
( e ) Within 10 days of the filing of a response pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, the Commission will notify the submitter in writing of its decision whether to accept and consider the submission and will state the basis for its decision, which it shall serve on the individual or entity and the tribe.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- ,;{ole\ -OoJ~ Directorate Identifier: 

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing James Kassebaum June 16,2014 No response. 

A4A Robert Ireland ' June 16,2014 No response. 

Other/ Additional Information: 

9
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATE 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 Satellite Enterprises Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  as Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies,
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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Neils Reijers
---------------------------------
Neils Reijers
Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2004

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 ("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  Satellite  Enterprises  Corp.  and will be  retained  by
Satellite  Enterprises  Corp.  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-20844

Summary Calendar

DONALD R. TEZINO, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-332)

July 16, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald R. Tezino, Jr. (“Tezino”) who is an African-American

sued his employer, E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company (“Dupont”),

claiming that he was discriminated against in his employment

advancement because of his race in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1965, as amended. His claim was presented by

agreement as a bench trial before the district court. At the
2

conclusion of Tezino’s testimony, the district court ruled that

there was no evidence upon which his claim of racial discrimination

could be based and entered an order of dismissal under FED. R. CIV.

P. 52(c). 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself and the findings of fact and

conclusions of law entered by the district court in its order of

dismissal under date of September 11, 1995. We are unable to say

that any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law of the

district court were either clearly erroneous or erroneous, as

applicable; and accordingly we affirm the final judgment entered by

the district court under date of September 11, 1995.

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 19, 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 1 p.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1-888-912-1227                           ( print page 10944)                        or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

                        Dated: February 18, 2011                        *.*

Shawn Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2011-4325 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
----

| 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:    February 23, 2017 |   | CRESCENT POINT ENERGY CORP. |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                                       |   |                        |   |   |
|                                       |   |                        |   | /s/ Ken Lamont |
|                                       |   |                        | Name:Title: | Ken LamontChief Financial Officer |

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. TIMOTHY LEE HOWARD, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-8086 (D.C. No. 1:18-CR -00051-SWS-3) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , KELLY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Timothy Lee Howard pleaded gu ilty to one count of unlawfully di stributing methamphetamine. He was senten ced to serve 100 months in priso n after the district court varied downward from the a dvisory Sentencing Guidelines r ange of 151 to 188 months. Although his plea agreemen t contained a waiver of his appellate rights, he filed a notice of appeal. In his docketing statement, he indic ated he wants to challenge his sentence on appeal . The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea ag reement pursuant to United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en b anc) (per curiam).

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata , and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 1 0th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 7, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Under Hahn , we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate r ights; (2) whether the defend ant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellat e rights; and (3) whether enforc ing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id . at 1325. The government asserts that all of the
Hahn conditions have been satisfied because: (1) Mr. Howard’s appe al is within the scope of the appeal waiver; (2) he knowingly and voluntarily wa ived his appellate rights; and (3) enforcing the wa iver would not result in a misc arriage of justice. Mr. Howard responds to the governme nt’s motion as follows: “Ap pellant Timothy Lee Howard, through unders igned counsel, takes no posit ion on the United States’ Motion to Enforce Appeal Waiver filed by the United Sta tes of America in this appeal.” Resp. at 1. We do not consider this an objectio n to the motion, and the reasoning in the government’s mo tion is sound. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce th e appeal waiver and dismiss th e appeal.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10898-10899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4549]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME:  Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 10 a.m.

PLACE:  999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS:  This meeting will be open to the public.

Items To Be Discussed

    Correction and Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of February 
17, 2011.
    Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Kansas Republican 
Party.
    Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Georgia Federal 
Elections Committee.
    Management and Administrative Matters.
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Commission Secretary and Clerk, at 
(202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

[[Page 10899]]


PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:  Judith Ingram, Press Officer; 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-4549 Filed 2-24-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-140 

April 15, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for a determination whether the pension plans maintained by institutions under

* * * (the System) constitute governmental plans within the scope of Section 4021(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act), which excludes such plans from the coverage of Title IV of the Act. 

As we understand the information submitted in support of your request, the institutions within the System are created

by Federal statute, are designated as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States by such statute, and are exempt

from Federal, State or local taxation. Additionally, there is authority for the Federal government to loan monies to the

institutions. Their function is to operate a system of agricultural credit in the United States. 

Based upon the above information we have determined that the institutions within the * * * System * * * are

instrumentalities of the Federal government within the meaning of Section 4021(b)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, plans

maintained by such entities for their employees are excluded from coverage under Title IV of the Act. 

We hope this is of assistance. [*2] 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 678

Providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules and Manual

of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 15, 2000

Mr. MCCOLLUM submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules

and Manual of the House of Representatives for the

One Hundred Seventh Congress.

1 Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and

2 Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hun3 dred Seventh Congress be printed as a House document,

4 and that three thousand additional copies shall be printed

5 and bound for the use of the House of Representatives,

6 of which nine hundred copies shall be bound in leather

7 with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the

8 Parliamentarian of the House.

Æ
### §1524. Intervention by a foreign representative

Upon recognition of a foreign proceeding, the foreign representative may intervene in any proceedings in a State or Federal court in the United States in which the debtor is a party.

(Added Pub. L. 109–8, title VIII, §801(a), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 142.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
# C_2006294EN.01003605.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/36

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-19/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 294/68)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.

1

---