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

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               GETTY IMAGES, INC.


     GETTY IMAGES, INC., a Delaware corporation, HEREBY CERTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

     1.   The name of the corporation is Getty Images, Inc. (the "Corporation").
The date of filing of its Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of
State of the State of Delaware was September 4, 1997. Certificates of Amendment
were filed on October 6, 1997 and February 6, 1998.

     2.   This Certificate of Amendment sets forth an amendment to the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation which was duly adopted by
stockholders of the Corporation entitled to vote thereon at the 1998 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders held on September 1, 1998 in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 242 and 211 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

     3.   Section 4.01 of the Article IV of the Certificate of Incorporation is
hereby amended in full to be and read as follows:

          "SECTION 4.01. Authorized Capital. The total number of shares of all
classes of capital stock that the Corporation shall have the authority to issue
is 80,000,000 shares, of which (i) 75,000,000 shares shall be common stock, par
value $0.01 per share ("Common Stock"), and (ii) 5,000,000 shares shall be
preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share ("Preferred Stock")."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Getty Images, Inc. has caused this certificate to be
signed by Jonathan Klein, its Chief Executive Officer, and attested by Heather
Redman, its secretary, this 9th day of November 1998.

                                        GETTY IMAGES, INC.

                                        By:  /s/ JONATHAN KLEIN
                                             -------------------------------
                                        Name: Jonathan Klein
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer


ATTEST:

/s/ HEATHER REDMAN
------------------------------------
Name: Heather Redman
Title: Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN TCI PACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             311
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         423,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,359,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        951,216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          629,676
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     709,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,359,823
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               380,283
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                91,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    531
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (488)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,019
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-3 (Commission File Nos. 333-42253 and 333-51337) 
and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated February 6, 1999, 
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of  BAB Holdings, 
Inc. as of  and for the year ended November 30, 1998 included in this 
Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended November 30, 1998.

    /s/ Blackman Kallick Bartelstein, LLP



BLACKMAN  KALLICK BARTELSTEIN, LLP
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
FEBRUARY 26, 1999
§ 522.1881 Prednisolone acetate. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of suspension contains 25 milligrams (mg) of prednisolone acetate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* The drug is administered to horses intra-articularly at a dosage level of 50 to 100 mg. The dose may be repeated when necessary. The drug is administered to dogs and cats intramuscularly at a dosage level of 10 to 50 mg. The dosage may be repeated when necessary. If the condition is of a chronic nature, an oral corticosteroid may be given as a maintenance dosage. The drug may be given intra-articularly to dogs and cats at a dosage level of 5 to 25 mg. The dose may be repeated when necessary after 7 days for two or three doses.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* The drug is indicated in the treatment of dogs, cats, and horses for conditions requiring an anti-inflammatory agent. The drug is indicated for the treatment of acute musculoskeletal inflammations such as bursitis, carpitis, and spondylitis. The drug is indicated as supportive therapy in nonspecific dermatosis such as summer eczema and atopy. The drug may be used as supportive therapy pre- and postoperatively and for various stress conditions when corticosteroids are required while the animal is being treated for a specific condition.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 16194, Mar. 25, 2014]
#### Schaefer *v.*Werling et al.

[No. 19,146.

Filed April 17, 1901.

Rehearing denied June 20, 1901.]

From the Huntington Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*S. M. Sayler*and *B. F. Ibach,*for appellant.

*W. H Hart*and *J. Q. Cline,*for appellees. .

Baker, J.

As the ground for reversal, appellant contends that the “Barrett law” is unconstitutional. The majority of the court held otherwise in *Adams*v. *City of Shelbyville,*154 Ind. 467. On the authority of that decision, the judgment is affirmed.
§ 358.301 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter ingrown toenail relief drug product in a form suitable for topical administration is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each condition in this subpart and each general condition established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this subpart to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter 1 of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
#### Edward O’Hare, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Moniak, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 53,594.

First District, First Division.

May 19, 1969.

Baker & McKenzie, of Chicago (Francis D. Morrissey and John T. Coleman, of counsel), for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ADESKO

delivered the opinion of the court.

*328This is an appeal by the defendant, Charles Moniak, from an order of the trial court which imposed upon the defendant the obligation of paying to the plaintiff, Edward O’Hare, attorney’s fees incurred in the unsuccessful prosecution of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The plaintiff had sought recovery from the defendant for property damage purportedly caused by the penetration of tree roots from defendant’s tree into the adjacent land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s action was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, but the court, on its own motion, entered an order taxing attorney’s fees against the defendant. The plaintiff-appellee has not filed a brief nor has he appeared in these proceedings in the Appellate Court.

 Although the record reveals that the defendant did not expeditiously pursue its Motion to Dismiss, there is no indication of bad faith or vexatious tactics on the defendant’s behalf. The defendant contends that attorney’s fees are not allowable to the successful party in the absence of a statute or in the absence of some agreement or stipulation specifically authorizing the allowance thereof, and are never allowed to unsuccessful litigants. We agree. Such contention is well established in this State. Ritter v. Ritter, 381 Ill 549, 46 NE2d 41 (1943); McGookey v. Winter, 334 Ill App 307, 79 NE2d 306 (1948). It should be noted also that section 10 of the Costs Act, Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 33, § 10, does not authorize the assessment of attorney’s fees to either the successful or unsuccessful litigant. Bortree v. Macon, 121 Ill App 111 (1906).

The order entered against the defendant assessing attorney’s fees as costs was error, and is therefore reversed.

Judgment reversed.

MURPHY and BURMAN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Jeffrey T. Cook, Susan M. Iverson, Keith T.
Fujinaga and each of them, severally as attorney-in-fact for him or her in any
and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Penford
Corporation for the fiscal year ended August 31, 1999, and to file same and any
amendments, with exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to
be done virtue hereof.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SIGNATURE                                                     DATE
<S>                                             <C>
/s/ Jeffrey T. Cook                             October 19, 1999
-----------------------------------             --------------------------------
Jeffrey T. Cook, Director

/s/ Paul H. Hatfield                            October 19, 1999
-----------------------------------             --------------------------------
Paul H. Hatfield, Director

/s/ John C. Hunter III                          October 19, 1999
-----------------------------------             --------------------------------
John C. Hunter III, Director

/s/ Sally G. Narodick                           October 19, 1999
-----------------------------------             --------------------------------
Sally G. Narodick, Director

/s/ William G. Parzybok, Jr.                    October 19, 1999
-----------------------------------             --------------------------------
William G. Parzybok, Jr., Director

/s/ N. Stewart Rogers                           October 19, 1999
-----------------------------------             --------------------------------
N. Stewart Rogers, Director

/s/ William K. Street                           October 19, 1999
------------------------------------            --------------------------------
William K. Street, Director
</TABLE>



                                       49
# C_2014142EN.01000901.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer

(Case C-19/14)

2014/C 142/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca

Applicants:

Defendant: Stadt Kevelaer

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (a) | Is the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) compatible with European Community law? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Is the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) compatible with European Community law?

| (b) | If not, must the legal situation be altered by the Federal Republic of Germany, or does a different legal situation arise immediately, and if so, which? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If not, must the legal situation be altered by the Federal Republic of Germany, or does a different legal situation arise immediately, and if so, which?

| (c) | Does the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the SGB remain in force until a (possibly) necessary change to the law by the institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Does the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the SGB remain in force until a (possibly) necessary change to the law by the institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany?

---
# L_2019304EN.01000401.xml

| 26.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 304/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 304/4

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2019/1946

of 19 November 2018

approving the conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,

Whereas the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and Korean Penisula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) should be concluded,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Sole article

The conclusion by the European Commission of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) is hereby approved.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Done at Brussels, 19 November 2018.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1903 Tributyrin. ( a ) Tributyrin (C15H26O6, CAS Reg. No. 60-01-5), also known as butyrin or glyceryl tributyrate, is the triester of glycerin and butyric acid. It is prepared by esterification of glycerin with excess butyric acid.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specification of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), p. 416, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. The affirmation of this ingredient as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use: ( 1 ) The ingredient is used in food as a flavoring agent and adjuvant as defined in § 170.3(o)(12) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in the following foods at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice; baked goods as defined in § 170.3(n)(1) of this chapter; alcoholic beverages as defined in § 170.3(n)(2) of this chapter; nonalcoholic beverages as defined in § 170.3(n)(3) of this chapter; fats and oils as defined in § 170.3(n)(12) of this chapter; frozen dairy desserts and mixes as defined in § 170.3(n)(20) of this chapter; gelatins, puddings and fillings as defined in § 170.3(n)(22) of this chapter; and soft candy as defined in § 170.3(n)(38) of this chapter.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[54 FR 7404, Feb. 21, 1989; 54 FR 10482, Mar. 13, 1989]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0**
**- 1**  **525**

GEORGE CLEVELAND ,
Plaintiff

– Appell ant ,

v.
SENECA SC, CITY OF; BONNIE L. MOSES, individually and in her official capacity as election manager, director, poll work er for the City of Seneca SC; RICK LACEY, individually and in his official capacity as Seneca Recreation Department Director; TERRY F. MULLIKIN, individually and in his official capacity as groundsman employed by the Seneca Recreation Department; RONNIE O ’ KELLY, Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Seneca individually and in his official capacity; SENECA POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN COVINGTON, individually and in his official capacity as Police Chief for the City of Seneca; JOHN DOES, in their official capacity as Poli ce Officer s for the City of Seneca ,
Defendant s
– Appe llee s
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:09

- cv
- 00626

- HMH )

Submitted : December 21 , 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judge s , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 George Cleveland , Appellant Pro Se. James Dean Jolly, Jr., LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, An derson, South Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
George Cleveland appeals the district court ’ s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief on Cleveland’s 42 U. S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and a
subsequent order denying Cleveland’s motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Cleveland v. Seneca SC , N o. 8:09

- cv
- 00626

- HMH (D.S.C.

Mar. 23, 2010; Apr. 9, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRME D
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1230900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   640531
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    5220566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2588193
<PP&E>                                        16776493
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4292477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                26192853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7487018
<BONDS>                                        4817585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        498562
<OTHER-SE>                                    13389688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  26192853
<SALES>                                       55538873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              55538873
<CGS>                                         36557700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 59707872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (154973)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              529603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4543629)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (915782)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (3627847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3627847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.73)


</TABLE>
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 9 , 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00256

- CR

MILTON WHITING , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1365102

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and sentenced by the trial court to sixty years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant is represented on appeal by retained counsel. Appellant’s brief was originally due July 1, 2013, but no brief has been filed. This court twice abated the appeal and directed the trial court to conduct hearings to determine the reason2

for the failure to file a brief pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b). The trial court held both hearings, and each time appellant confirmed to the court
that he wished counsel to rem ain his attorney on appeal. At each hearing, counsel advised the court that only minor portions of the brief needed to be completed and
he would file the brief within a matter of days . The trial court found appellant is not indigent, and that he desire s to have retained counsel represent him on appeal.

On June 24, 2014 , this court ordered counsel to file a brief on or before July 18, 2014. The court explained that if counsel did not timely file appellant’s brief as
ordered
, the court would consider the appe al without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Still, n o brief was filed.

On the basis of th e trial court’s findings, this court has considered the appeal
without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). We find no fundamental error.
Accordingly, the judgm ent of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).