alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                  EXHIBIT 3.1


                       CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                  RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


The Titan Corporation, a corporation organized and 
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the 
State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:     That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of 
The Titan Corporation resolutions were duly adopted setting forth 
an amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said 
Corporation, declaring such amendment to be advisable and directing 
that the amendments proposed be considered at the next annual 
meeting of the stockholders of said Corporation.

The amendment amends the opening paragraph of Article 
Fourth of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which 
paragraph now reads as follows:

"Fourth:     The Corporation is authorized to issue two 
classes of stock, which shall be designated Preferred 
Stock and Common Stock, respectively.  The total number 
of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation 
shall have the authority to issue shall be 32,500,000, 
consisting of 2,500,000 shares of Preferred Stock of the 
par value of $1.00 per share, and 30,000,000 shares of 
Common Stock of the par value of $.01 per share."

so that from and after adoption of the amendment, said paragraph 
shall read as follows:
"Fourth:     The Corporation is authorized to issue two 
classes of stock, which shall be designated Preferred 
Stock and Common Stock, respectively.  The total number 
of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation 
shall have the authority to issue shall be 47,500,000, 
consisting of 2,500,000 shares of Preferred Stock of the 
par value of $1.00 per share, and 45,000,000 shares of 
Common Stock of the par value of $.01 per share."
<PAGE>

SECOND:     That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of 
its Board of Directors, the annual meeting of the stockholders of 
said Corporation was duly called and held, upon notice in 
accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the 
State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares 
as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

THIRD:     That said amendment was duly adopted in 
accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General 
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Titan Corporation has caused this 
Certificate to be signed by Gene W. Ray, its President and Chief 
Executive Officer, and attested by Philip J. Englund, its 
Secretary, this 30th day of June, 1997.

THE TITAN CORPORATION



     /s/               
=======================
Gene W. Ray
President and
Chief Executive Officer
ATTEST:



     /s/               
=======================
Philip J. Englund
Secretary
Exhibit 8.1

Dynea International Oys principal subsidiary undertakings as at December 31, 2004 are as follows:

|Subsidiary              | Country of    Incorporation | % Ownership
      December 31, 2004
|----------------------- | --------------------------- | -----------------------------------
|Dynea ASA               | Norway                      | 100                                
|Dynea Austria GmbH      | Austria                     | 100                                
|Dynea B.V.              | Netherlands                 | 100                                
|Dynea Chemicals Oy      | Finland                     | 100                                
|Dynea Erkner GmbH       | Germany                     | 100                                
|Dynea Ireland Limited   | Ireland                     | 100                                
|Dynea NV                | Belgium                     | 100                                
|Dynea Finland Oy        | Finland                     | 100                                
|Dynea UK Limited        | UK                          | 100                                
|Dynea Resins France SAS | France                      | 100                                
|Dynea Canada Ltd.       | Canada                      | 100                                
|Dynea Overlays, Inc-    | USA                         | 100                                
|Dynea U.S.A. Inc.       | USA                         | 100                                
|Dynea NZ Limited        | New Zealand                 | 100                                
|Dynea Singapore Pte Ltd | Singapore                   | 100                                
|PT Dynea Indria         | Indonesia                   | 51                                 





---
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 3/4/2013

Sample Number: 130819-001 Date Collected: 02/27/2013 07:50 Date Received: 2/27/2013

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 256 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 03/01/2013 14:54 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 130819-002 Date Collected: 02/27/2013 07:50 Date Received: 2/27/2013

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 1.3 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 03/01/2013 14:59 EPA 200.8

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 130819 Page 1 of 1
### §2486. Correction of named breeder

An error as to the naming of a breeder in the application, without deceptive intent, shall not affect validity of plant variety protection and may be corrected at any time by the Secretary in accordance with regulations established by the Secretary or upon order of a federal court before which the matter is called in question. Upon such correction the Secretary shall issue a certificate accordingly. Such correction shall not deprive any person of any rights the person otherwise would have had.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §86, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1552; Pub. L. 103–349, §13(n), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3143.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–349 substituted "the Secretary" for "him" in first sentence and "the person" for "he" in third sentence.

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–349 effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.
#### Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Respondent, v. Morris J. Rosner et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Salvage & Surplus Co., Defendants, and Samuel Ginsberg, Individually and as a Partner in Salvage & Surplus Co., Appellant.

Order entered on August 15, 1960, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint, if so advised, within 20 days after service of a copy of the order entered herein, with notice of entry. Under subdivision 2 of section 167 and subdivision 1 of section 143 of the Insurance Law, no policy of personal injury liability insurance may legally be issued unless it contains a provision insuring the named insured against liability for death or injury sustained as a result of negligence in the operation or use of the vehicle by any person operating or using the same with the permission, express or implied, of the named insured. The complaint alleges that at the time of the accident plaintiff had agreed to insure defendants against liability to any third person arising out of the operation of a certain motor vehicle by one Leo Bradford, but at the time of the accident in which such third person was injured the vehicle was being operated by defendant Samuel Ginsberg. Plaintiff attempts to avoid the impact of the provisions of the Insurance Law by attempting to allege an agreement with defendants to reimburse plaintiff for any loss to third parties if the vehicle was not operated by Leo Bradford. We do not reach the question as to the efficacy of such a contract since the allegations of the complaint do not sufficiently plead the agreement. Moreover, the allegations of paragraph “Thirteenth” of the complaint do not even plead an agreement in general terms but merely allege that plaintiff notified defendants of a claimed breach and of a claimed liability to reimbursement. These amount to nothing more than allegations of notification of a legal position taken by plaintiff. Hence, if plaintiff relies upon a contract it can tender the issue of the validity of that contract only by pleading it properly and alleging a breach. The complaint is deficient in that respect and should therefore have been dismissed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
§ 705.8 Motion pictures. ( a ) The rules and procedures given in the preceding for TV will also apply to cooperation with commercial motion picture producers.
( b ) The Navy assists in the production of commercial, privately financed, nontheatrical motion pictures of institutional or of educational value to the public. They Navy will not: ( 1 ) Solicit their production.
( 2 ) Provide lists of subjects the Navy considers “desirable.”
( 3 ) State that the Navy will use a commercially produced film.
( 4 ) Imply endorsement of a product.
( 5 ) Permit the use of official Navy seals.
( c ) Navy assistance to motion pictures and all other audio-visual products produced by Navy contractors will be subject to the same rules and procedures that apply to other non-government producers. Audio-visual products produced by Navy contractors, with or without Navy assistance, will be submitted to the Chief of Information via the appropriate Navy headquarters activity for coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) for clearance for public release. They will be accompained by five copies of the script and a statement from the producer that costs were paid from corporate (vice contract) funds.
( d ) When a commercial film which has been produced with Navy cooperation is screened in a community, local commands can provide Navy exhibits for display in theater lobbies, coordinate displays of recruiting material, and arrange for personal appearances of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy military and civilian personnel, provided such cooperation is approved by the Chief of Information and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs).
[41 FR 29101, July 15, 1976, as amended at 44 FR 6390, Feb. 1, 1979]
#### OVERCASH v. KOON

No. 608P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 754

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1998.
### §1727c. Direct uses or sales of commodities

Agricultural commodities provided to a least developed country under this section—

(1) may be used in such country for—

(A) direct feeding programs, including programs that include activities that deal directly with the special health needs of children and mothers consistent with section 2151b(c)(2) of title 22, relating to the Child Survival Fund; or

(B) the development of emergency food reserves; or

(2) may be sold in such country by the government of the country or the Administrator (or their designees) as provided in the agreement, and the proceeds of such sale used in accordance with this subchapter.

(July 10, 1954, ch. 469, title III, §304, as added Pub. L. 95–88, title II, §211(a)(2), Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 550; amended Pub. L. 95–424, title II, §202, Oct. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 955; Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1512, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3642.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 304 of act July 10, 1954, ch. 469, title III, 68 Stat. 459, enacted section 1693 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–808, §2(D), Nov. 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 1535.

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–624 amended section generally, substituting present provisions for provisions relating to furnishing of credit by Commodity Credit Corporation to participating country for purchase of commodities, payment by recipient government, waiver of requirements to meet humanitarian or developmental objectives, and payment of freight charges of relatively least developed countries.

1978—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 95–424 added subsec. (d).

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

#### Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–624 effective Jan. 1, 1991, see section 1513 of Pub. L. 101–624, set out as a note under section 1691 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–424 effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 605 of Pub. L. 95–424, set out as a note under section 2151 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 215 of Pub. L. 95–88, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1702 of this title.
U.S.Deportment

of Transportation

Office of the Secretory

of Transportation

Assistant Secretary

New Jersey Avenue. SE

Washington. DC 20590

I= ~; 3

MAY 3.0 2014

The Honorable Laurie Gill

Mayor of the City of Pierre

222 East Dakota Ave.

P.O. Box 1253

Pierre, SD 57501-1253

DearMayor Gill:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding Great Lakes Aviation's (Great Lakes) service at

Pierre. In the letter, you urge the Department of Transportation (the Department) to issue a

Request for Proposals for replacement service on the grounds that Great Lakes' service is

unreliable and is not meeting your community's Essential Air Service (EAS) needs.

We are aware of Great Lakes' operational problems that have been caused by a lack of pilots due

in part to recent statutory and regulatory changes involving pilot training requirements and the

carrier's implementation of the changes. You are right that Great Lakes' service problems are,

not limited to Pierre; rather, the carrier's service has suffered system-wide. . .

In response to the severe pilot shortage, which is not limited to Great Lakes, the carrier has taken

some rather drastic measures. DUling the first quarter 0[2014, it suspended or terminated

service at 13 subsidized EAS communities and an additional number of non-EAS communities.

In addition, as of April 1, Great Lakes began to operate Beech 1900 aircraft that have been

reconfigured for 9 seats in order to more effectively utilize the pilots it has on staff. The

reconfigured aircraft are intended to more quickly utilize new pilots that it has hired as a result of

the increased attrition that hampered its ability to operate a full schedule in the first quarter of

2014. Great Lakes has indicated to us that it is working well and the carrier has expanded the

reconfiguration to more aircraft in its fleet.

I, along with the EAS program staff, met with Great Lakes in Washington, D.C. in late March in

an attempt to gather more information on their current operations and what the carrier intends to

do moving forward to improve its operation.

The Department will be monitoring Great Lakes' service over the next few weeks and if we do

not see improvement, we will consider taking steps that may be necessary to ameliorate the
-2-

effects of their service reductions, cancellations, and hardship on the community, including the

possibility of issuing a Request for Proposals as you recommend.

A copy of this letter will be placed in Pierre' docket (Docket DOT-OST-2011-0138) on

www.regulations.gov.

Sincerely,

-~»~

~/tL Susan L. Kurland

A istant Secretary for

Aviati n and International Affairs
#### In the Matter of Max Rosenthal, Deceased. Katherine Rosenthal, Respondent; Cemetery Association of Young Israel of Flatbush, Appellant; Elmont Cemetery Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding under section 89 of the Membership Corporations Law, by the widow of Max Rosenthal, deceased, for the disinterment of Ms body from the Beth David Cemetery, the Cemetery Association of Young Israel of Flatbush appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 28, 1961, which granted the widow’s petition. Order affirmed, without costs. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the granting of the motion was not an improvident exercise of discretion *(Matter of Sherman [Mt. Eden Cemetery*Assn.— *West Side Inst.*Synagogue], 107 N. Y. S. 2d 905; affd. 279 App. Div. 872, affd. *700304 N. Y. 745; *Matter of Currier [Woodlawn*Cemetery], 300 N. Y. 162). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### Alexander S. Scrooby, Respondent, v. Lila G. Scrooby, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified by granting counsel fees in the amount of $250 and as modified affirmed, with costs to appellant, and trial of the action to be had during the week of May 25, 1964, the $250 to be paid before the commencement of the trial and if plaintiff is not in a position to do that, defendant may reapply for temporary alimony upon appropriate papers. Memorandum: In the exercise of a proper discretion this relief should have been granted. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying defendant’s motion for alimony *pendente lite,*temporary support for child, and counsel fees.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Yecchio, JJ.
§ 757.14 Claims asserted. ( a ) *General.* The DoN asserts MCRA and 10 U.S.C. 1095 claims when medical care is furnished to Navy and Marine Corps active duty personnel, retirees, or their dependents, or any other person when appropriate, and third-party tort or contract liability exists for payment of medical expenses resulting from an injury or disease. Claims are asserted when the injured party is treated in a MTF or when the DoN is responsible for reimbursing a non-Federal care provider.
( b ) *Independent cause of action.* The MCRA creates an independent cause of action for the United States. The Government can administratively assert and litigate MCRA claims in its own name and for its own benefit. Procedural defenses, such as a failure of the injured person to properly file and/or serve a complaint on the third party, that may prevent the injured person from recovering, do not prevent the United States from pursuing its own action to recover the value of medical treatment provided to the injured person. The right arises directly from the statute; the statutory reference to subrogation pertain only to one mode of enforcement. In creating an independent right in the Government, the Act prevents a release given by the injured person to a third party from affecting the Government's claim.
( c ) *Liable parties.* MCRA and 10 U.S.C 1095 claims may be asserted against individuals, corporations, associations and non-Federal Government agencies subject to the limitation described in § 757.15.
( d ) *Reasonable value of medical care.* The reasonable value of medical care provided to an injured person is determined: ( 1 ) By using the rate set as described in § 757.13 (b)(2) in bills issued by the MTF; or
( 2 ) By the actual amount paid by the Federal Government to non-Federal medical care providers.
( e ) *Alternate theories of recovery.* ( 1 ) Often, recovery under the MCRA is not possible because no third-party tort liability exists. For example, if a member, retiree, or dependent is driving a vehicle and is injured in single-car accident, there is no tortfeasor. Title 10 U.S.C. 1095 provides the Government alternate means for recovery as a third-party beneficiary of an insurance contract of the injured party.
( 2 ) Recovery may also be possible under State workers' compensation laws. Case law in this area is still emerging, but in most jurisdictions, the United States stands in the position of a lien claimant for services rendered.
[57 FR 5072, Feb. 12, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53428, Sept. 19, 2007]
### §§1445c, 1445c–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–624, title VIII, §806(1), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3475

Section 1445c, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §108, as added Sept. 29, 1977, Pub. L. 95–113, title VIII, §807, 91 Stat. 947, related to price support program for 1978 through 1981 crops of peanuts.

Section 1445c–1, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §108A, as added Dec. 22, 1981, Pub. L. 97–98, title VII, §705, 95 Stat. 1254, related to price support program for 1982 through 1985 crops of peanuts.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective beginning with 1991 crop of an agricultural commodity, with provision for prior crops, see section 1171 of Pub. L. 101–624, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 1421 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.504 NDRB actions preliminary to discharge review. ( a ) When each application for discharge review is received by the NDRB, the service record and, if required, health record of the applicant will be requested from the appropriate record custodian.
( b ) Upon receipt, each record of service will be reviewed to determine whether or not the applicant appears to have been discharged under circumstances which might act as a bar to Veterans' Administration benefits under 38 U.S.C. 3103. These circumstances of discharge are: ( 1 ) Discharge or dismissal by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial.
( 2 ) Discharge as a conscientious objector who refused to perform military duty, to wear the uniform or otherwise to comply with lawful orders of competent military authority.
( 3 ) Discharge as a deserter.
( 4 ) Discharge on the basis, or as part of the basis, of an absence without authority from active duty for a continuous period of at least 180 days, if such discharge was under conditions other than honorable. Additionally, such absence is computed without regard to the applicant's normal or adjusted expiration of term of service.
( 5 ) Discharge or dismissal of an officer based on acceptance of the officer's resignation for the good of the service.
( 6 ) Discharge, on his/her own application, during a period of hostilities, as an alien.
( c ) If it appears that the applicant was discharged under one or more of the circumstances outlined in § 724.504b, a written notification will be sent which informs the applicant that: ( 1 ) An initial service record review reveals that the discharge may have been awarded under circumstances which make the applicant ineligible for receipt of VA benefits regardless of any action taken by the NDRB.
( 2 ) Separate action by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) and/or the VA, in case of 180 days consecutive UA disqualification, may confer eligibility for VA benefits. Instructions for making application to the BCNR and for contacting the VA are provided.
[50 FR 10943, Mar. 19, 1985, as amended at 75 FR 747, Jan. 6, 2010]
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
  (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/ John K. GrelleName:
    
    John K. GrelleTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    March 31, 2009