alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF
                 NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

     North American Security Life Insurance Company (the "Company"), duly
organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, does hereby certify that:

     1.   That on the 28th day of March 1997, the Board of Directors of the
Company duly adopted by its written consent, pursuant to Section 141(f) of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, a resolution setting forth a
proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company as
follows:

     RESOLVED, that Article One of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
     Company be amended by changing the name of the Company from North American
     Security Life Insurance Company to The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
     of North America, and it is

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the change of the Company's name be recommended to
     the sole stockholder of the Company, and it is

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that any one of the President or the Vice President,
     Secretary and General Counsel are hereby authorized to do all things and
     take all actions to effect the change of name, and it is

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the change of the Company's name will be effective
     upon approval of the Delaware Department of Insurance and any other
     regulatory agencies needed to approve such change.

     2.   That on the 28th day of March 1997, pursuant to the resolution of the
Board of Directors, the sole stockholder of the Company duly adopted by its
written consent, pursuant to Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware, a resolution in favor of the amendment.


<PAGE>   2

     3.   That the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company is hereby amended
by deleting Article FIRST in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu
thereof:

          FIRST:   The name of the Company is:
                   The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company of North America.

     4.   That the foregoing amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with
the provisions of Sections 242 and 228 (by the written consent of the sole
stockholder) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     5.   That the foregoing amendment shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern
Standard Time on October 1, 1997.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, North American Security Life Insurance Company has
caused this Certificate to be executed by James D. Gallagher, Vice President,
Secretary and General Counsel.



                               NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


                                  By /s/ James D. Gallagher
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     James D. Gallagher
                                     Vice President, Secretary & General Counsel
#### § 1303.116 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as a right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
#### James Gavin, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Chetan Sati et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[815 NYS2d 250]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Chetan Sati and Sashi Sati appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Risi, J.), entered December 21, 2004, as, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff James Gavin sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and upon the denial of *735their motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff James Gavin and against them in the principal sum of $35,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted by the plaintiff James Gavin against the appellants.

The jury determined that the plaintiff James Gavin sustained a medically determined injury or impairment which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days immediately following the accident (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230, 237 [1982]; *Krakofsky v Fox-Rizzi,*273 AD2d 277 [2000]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Gavin, “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” *(Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Gavin’s claim that he was unable to work for eight months following the accident was not supported by any competent medical evidence linking his purported inability to work with his alleged accident-related injuries *(see Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45, 52 [2005]; *Arshad v Gomer,*268 AD2d 450 [2000]). Thus, the trial court should have granted the appellants’ motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s i s c a s e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JT K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN TONI O ROQ UE, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72619 A ge nc yN o. A 013- 013- 784 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anua ry11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A nt oni o R oque , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on f i ndi ng hi m r e m ovabl e f ora l i e n s m uggl i ng. W e ha ve



# FI LED JAN 19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ T K / Res ea r ch 07- 72619 2 j ur i s di c t i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f ors ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e the a g e n c y ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t, U rz ua C ovarrubi as v. G on zales , 4 8 7 F .3 d7 4 2 , 7 4 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) , an dr e v ie w d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f law , A l tam i rano v. G on zales , 427 F . 3d 5 8 6 , 5 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s det erm i nat i on thatR oq ue w as re m ov abl e f

or al i en sm ug gl i ng w here the re cord es t abl i shes thathe prov i ded a sa fe h o u s e an dh e lp e da rr an g e dtr an s p o rta tio n f o ru n d o c u m e n te da lie n s . See H e rn a n dez - G u a da rra m a v . A s h c r o ft , 3 9 4 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( to e s t abl i s h tha tpe t i t i one re nga ge d i n a l i e n s m uggl i ng, gove rnm e nt“ ne e d notpr ove d ir e c t p a rtic ip a tio n in th e p h y s ic a l b o r d e rc r o s s in g ” ) . W e r ej ec tR oq ue’ s c on t ent i on thatthe IJi m prop er l y r el i ed on hear say e v id e n c e . Se e Es

p i n o z a v . I

NS , 45 F . 3d 30 8, 30 9-10 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( the IJm ay c o n s id e re v id e n c e if

it “is p r o b a tiv e a n dits a d m is s io n is f u n d a m e n ta llyf

a ir ” ) . R o q u e ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e n o t p e r s u a s iv e . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

vs. ) CASE NO.: 3:06CR208-MEF

)

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

)

ORDER

For good cause, it is

ORDERED that a final pretrial conference be and is hereby set for February 16,

2007 at 1:00 p.m. in courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church

Street, Montgomery, Alabama. 

That all applicable deadlines contained in the prior arraignment order and pretrial

order are adjusted accordingly, provided, however that the deadline for the filing of

pretrial, dispositive motions is not extended.

Done this 14th day of November, 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 32 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 915.70 Personal liability.

No member or alternate member of the committee and no employee or agent of the committee shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate, employee, or agent, except for acts of dishonesty, willful misconduct, or gross negligence.
§ 760.1704 Payments to dairy farmers for milk. ( a ) A milk loss payment will be made to an affected farmer who is determined by the FSA county committee to be in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this subpart in the amount equal to 90 percent for affected farmers who meet the definition of underserved farmer or rancher or 75 percent for all other affected farmers of the fair market value of the farmer's normal marketings for the application period, less: ( 1 ) Any amount the affected farmer received for milk marketed during the application period; and
( 2 ) Any payment not subject to refund that the affected farmer received from a milk handler with respect to milk removed from the commercial market during the application period.
( b ) [Reserved]
[88 FR 62290, Sept. 11, 2023]
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Periodic
Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Patriot Coal Corporation.
  /s/ Mark N. SchroederMark N. SchroederChief Financial Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BELINDA GAIL BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv710-MHT

) 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 12)

is granted.

(2) The motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10)

is reset for submission, without oral argument,

on June 7, 2007, with any opposing brief and

evidentiary materials due by said date.

DONE, this the 18th day of May, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00710-MHT-TFM Document 13 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
3006.9000 Applicability (USCG).       Contracts awarded by the U.S. Coast Guard using the procedures in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3037.104–91 are expressly authorized under Section 1091 of Title 10 U.S.C. as amended, for the Coast Guard and are exempt from the competition requirements of (FAR) 48 CFR part 6.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3006.90—Competition Requirements For Personal Services Contracting
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JODIE A. MILLER, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 5:03cv318-LAC/WCS

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon Defendant’s status report, doc. 29, which

advises that a decision adverse to Plaintiff, denying benefits, was reached by an

administrative law judge on September 12, ,2005. The Plaintiff has filed exceptions to

that decision which the Appeals Council are considering. Doc. 27.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant shall file a notice by September

15, 2006, advising the Court the status of the administrative proceedings on remand. 

DONE AND ORDERED on July 27, 2006.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00318-LC-WCS Document 30 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 1480.1 - General    **Parent topic:** PART 1480 - ACQUISITIONS UNDER THE BUY INDIAN ACT1480.101 Scope of part.       This part implements policies and procedures for the procurement of supplies, general services, architect and engineering (A&E) services, or construction while giving preference to Indian Economic Enterprises under authority of the Buy Indian Act (25 U.S.C. 47).1480.102 Buy Indian Act acquisition regulations.       (a) This part supplements Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Department of the Interior Acquisition Regulation (DIAR) requirements in this chapter to meet the needs of the Department of Interior in implementing the Buy Indian Act.          (b) This part is under the direct oversight and control of the Chief Financial Officer, within the Office of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior (CFO). The CFO is responsible for issuing and implementing this part.          (c) Acquisitions conducted under this part are subject to all applicable requirements of the FAR and DIAR, as well as internal policies, procedures, or instructions issued by Indian Affairs. After the FAR, this part would take precedence over any inconsistent Indian Affairs policies, procedures, or instructions.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKILSTAF, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:06-cv-00728-MHT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Skilstaf, Inc. hereby moves the Court to enter summary judgment 

in its favor and against Plaintiff. As grounds for this motion, Defendant relies on 

the pleadings, the evidentiary materials filed under seal with this motion, and the 

supporting brief (including the evidentiary materials attached thereto), all of which 

has been submitted contemporaneously herewith. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court to enter summary 

judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. 

 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 38 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

Respectfully submitted, 

 s/Charles A. Stewart III 

Charles A. Stewart III (STE067) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

The Alabama Center for Commerce 

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 780 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Telephone: (334) 956-7700 

Facsimile: (334) 956-7701 

cstewart@bradleyarant.com

 s/Amelia T. Driscoll 

Amelia T. Driscoll (DRI016) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

adriscoll@bradleyarant.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Skilstaf, Inc. 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 38 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 18th, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification 

of such filing to the following: 

Robert E. Cole 

437 Chestnut Street, Suite 218 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

Beth A. Friel 

Jeanne L. Bakker 

Mongtomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads 

123 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by U. S. Postal Service the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: None. 

/s/ Amelia T. Driscoll 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 38 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv723-MHT

)

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The court wishes the plaintiff to fully understand the limited nature of being

allowed to proceed in forma pauperis which only permits the plaintiff to commence this suit

without prepayment of fees and court costs. The plaintiff should understand she may incur

expenses as a result of the prosecution of this case. In the event of a trial, the plaintiff may

compel the attendance of witnesses through subpoena only by tendering to each witness

payment of a one-day witness fee of $40, plus mileage. Also, court costs, which vary, but

which can be very substantial, are normally assessed against the losing party. This means

that a plaintiff who loses a case, even though proceeding in forma pauperis, may be charged

with, and obligated to pay, all court costs.

Now, having advised the plaintiff of the possible expense of litigation, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be and is hereby

GRANTED.

Done this 17th day of August, 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1008.19 Criminal penalties—improper disclosure.

Subsection (i)(1) of the Act provides that a Federal employee who willfully discloses information subject to the Privacy Act in violation of the Act or rules promulgated under it shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined up to $5,000.
§ 13.20 Disclosure of documents. ( a ) Upon written request to the reviewing official, the defendant may review any relevant and material documents, transcripts, records, and other materials that relate to the allegations set out in the complaint and upon which the findings and conclusions of the investigating official under § 13.4(b) are based, unless such documents are subject to a privilege under Federal law. Upon payment of fees for duplication, the defendant may obtain copies of such documents.
( b ) Upon written request to the reviewing official, the defendant also may obtain a copy of all exculpatory information in the possession of the reviewing official or investigating official relating to the allegations in the complaint, even if it is contained in a document that would otherwise be privileged. If the document would otherwise be privileged, only that portion containing exculpatory information must be disclosed.
( c ) The notice sent to the Attorney General from the reviewing official as described in § 13.5 is not discoverable under any circumstances.
( d ) The defendant may file a motion to compel disclosure of the documents subject to the provisions of this section. Such a motion may only be filed with the ALJ following the filing of an answer pursuant to § 13.9.
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 9 of 9
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 Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLOR957000-L625100000-PM000: HAG11-0075]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.

## Willamette Meridian

## Oregon

T. 6 S., R. 10 E., accepted November 1, 2010

T. 41 S., R. 15 E., accepted November 1, 2010

                            T. 41 S., R. 14                            1/2                             E., accepted November 1, 2010                        

T. 3 S., R. 44 E., accepted November 1, 2010

T. 26 S., R. 12 W., accepted November 5, 2010

# ADDRESSES:

A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Land Office at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, 333 S.W. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest against a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest (at the above address) with the Oregon/Washington State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6124, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 333 S.W. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204.

Pamela J. Chappel,

Acting Chief, Branch of Land, Mineral, and Energy Resources.

[FR Doc. 2010-31430 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
<Page>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Universal Detection
Technology (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September
30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacques Tizabi, Principal Executive Officer and Acting
Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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 and 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 Registrant.


                                        /s/ Jacques Tizabi
                                        ------------------
Dated: November 19, 2007                Jacques Tizabi
                                        Principal Executive Officer and Acting
                                        Principal Financial Officer and
                                        Principal Accounting Officer