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

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                               PURCHASESOFT, INC.

                         Pursuant to Section 242 of the
                         General Corporation Law of the
                                State of Delaware

         PURCHASESOFT, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws

of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"),

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         That, by action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, a

resolution was duly adopted, pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation

Law of the State of Delaware, setting forth an amendment to the Certificate of

Incorporation of the Corporation and declaring such amendment to be advisable.

The stockholders of the Corporation duly approved said proposed amendment at the

Corporation's Annual Meeting on November 17, 2000 in accordance with Section 242

of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. The resolution setting

forth the amendment is as follows:

                  RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Article FOURTH of the
                  Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, be and hereby
                  is deleted in its entirety and the following sentence be
                  inserted in lieu thereof:

         FOURTH: The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
Corporation shall have authority to issue is 50,000,000 shares, consisting
solely of:

         50,000,000 shares of common stock, $.01 par value per share ("Common
Stock").

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused its corporate seal to be

affixed hereto and this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by the

undersigned, Donald S. LaGuardia, its President and Chief Executive Officer,

this 30 day of November, 2000.

                                   PURCHASESOFT, INC.

                                   By:     /s/ Donald S. LaGuardia
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                   Name:   Donald S. LaGuardia
                                   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the  undersigned,  Warren G.  Lichtenstein,  Chief Executive  Officer of Gateway
Industries, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ Warren G. Lichtenstein
                                              --------------------------
                                              Warren G. Lichtenstein
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              April 30, 2003
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EPS PRIMARY
REPRESENTS BASIC NET INCOME PER SHARE.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029863
<NAME> AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         108,360
<SECURITIES>                                    27,485
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,545)
<INVENTORY>                                     31,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               302,103
<PP&E>                                       1,172,501
<DEPRECIATION>                               (410,461)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,525,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          535,259
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           464
<OTHER-SE>                                     668,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,525,030
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,023,284
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,814,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,365
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                194,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   108,571
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.40
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-QSB of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 

 
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:August 19, 2005.                                                           /s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger   C. Jayson Brentlinger   Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 410
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 410 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 410.102 Excluded services. None of the services specified in § 410.100 is covered as a CORF service if the service— ( a ) Would not be covered as an inpatient hospital service if furnished to a hospital inpatient;
( b ) Is not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. An example would be services furnished as part of a maintenance program involving repetitive activities that do not require the skilled services of nurses or therapists.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.15

AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
    THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into effective as of March 1, 2021 and serves to amend the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement entered into by and between Soliton, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”), and Joe Tanner (“Executive”), on February 25, 2019 (the “Agreement”).  All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Company has agreed to amend the Agreement to extend the period of severance granted to the Executive; 
WHEREAS, the Executive has agreed to extend the duration of the non-solicitation and non-compete period in the Agreement; and 
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement embodying the terms of Executive’s employment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and promises of the Parties contained herein, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
1.The references to “nine months” set forth Section 6(a) and 6(b) of the Agreement are hereby amended to “twelve months”.
2.The references to “nine months” set forth Section 8(a) and 8(b) of the Agreement are hereby amended to “twelve months”.
3.The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect and, except as specifically stated herein, is otherwise unmodified and that this Amendment does not alter, amend, modify or affect any other agreement between the parties.  Any reference in the Agreement to “this Agreement” shall be deemed to mean “the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.”
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the date written above.
Soliton, Inc.
By:     /s/ Brad Hauser        
Name: Brad Hauser
Title:   Chief Executive Officer and President


Joe Tanner


By:     /s/ Joe Tanner
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the balance
sheet as of December 31, 1998 and from the statement of operations for
the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         373,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,034
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      10,219,334
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,121,866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,170,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      6,656,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,120,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,170,156
<SALES>                                      3,386,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,698,431
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,957,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,943
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             468,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                271,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            271,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 65,258
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   206,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The partnership has an unclassified balance sheet; therefore, the value is $0.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005308EN.01001102.xml

| 6.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3949 — Shell/ERG/Ionio Gas/JV)

(2005/C 308/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 November 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3949. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3949. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 414

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

#### § 414.21 Medicare payment basis.

Medicare payment is based on the lesser of the actual charge or the applicable fee schedule amount.

[62 FR 59101, Oct. 31, 1997]
#### L. G. CALDWELL AND J. A. DUNWODY, COPART-NERS, TRADING AS CALDWELL & DUNWODY, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 33; 250 U. S., 14.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed,, and the Supreme Court decided:

The provision of the general railroad right of way act of Mare-h 3, 1875, granting a beneficiary railroad company the right to take from the public lands adjacent to its line timber necessary for the construction of its railroad, must be strictly construed and does not permit that portions of trees remaining after extraction of ties be appropriated either as a means of business or profit or to compensate the agents employed by the railroad to do the tie cutting.

*198A grant of “ timber ” for purposes of railroad construction is not a grant of “ trees.”

Section 8 of tbe act of March 3, 1891, chapter 561, 26 Statutes, 1099, enacting that, in proceedings growing out of trespasses on public timber lands in Colorado and some other States, it shall be a defense that the cutting or removal was by a resident of the State for agricultural, mining, manufacturing, or domestic purposes, under rules of the Interior Department, but providing that nothing in the act contained shall operate to enlarge the rights of any railway company to cut timber on the public domain, gives no protection to persons who, having cut ties as agents of a railroad company under the act of March 3, 1875, *supra,*seek to appropriate the remaining tops of the trees cut, for the purpose of sale.

The right to take timber granted by the act of March 3, 1875, *supra,*can not be enlarged by a permission from an official of the General Land Office.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 19, 1919.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00271-CV 

No. 07-23-00328-CV 

 

MAURO E. GARZA & EVERETT HOLDINGS, LLC, APPELLANTS 

V. 

JULIA PEREZ, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 57th District Court 

Bexar County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 2023-CI-08559, Honorable Tina Torres, Presiding 

October 2, 2023 

ORDER OF SEVERANCE AND DISMISSAL 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellants, Mauro E. Garza and Everett Holdings, LLC (“Garza and Everett”), 

appeal from the trial court’s Order Denying Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss 

(TCPA). Appellee, Julia Perez, has filed a cross-appeal. Now pending before the Court 

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

is Garza and Everett’s motion to dismiss Perez’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. We grant 

the motion.

The trial court signed the interlocutory order on June 14, 2023. A notice of appeal 

was, therefore, due within twenty days after the order was signed, by July 5, 2023. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(b) (appellate deadline for accelerated appeals), 28.1(a)

(accelerating appeals from interlocutory orders). Garza and Everett timely filed a notice 

of appeal on June 30, 2023. As such, any notice of cross-appeal by Perez was due within 

fourteen days after the filing of Garza and Everett’s notice of appeal, by July 14, 2023. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(d) (“if any party timely files a notice of appeal, another party may 

file a notice of appeal within the applicable period [. . .] or 14 days after the first filed notice 

of appeal, whichever is later”). Perez did not file a notice of appeal until August 15, 2023.

On August 29, 2023, Garza and Everett filed a motion to dismiss Perez’s untimely crossappeal. Perez has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss to date. 

A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997). 

Notwithstanding that the Texas Supreme Court has directed us to construe the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right of appeal is not lost by 

imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of those rules, we 

are prohibited from enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See 

Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 616–17; TEX. R. APP. P. 2 (providing that appellate courts may 

not suspend a rule’s operation or order a different procedure to alter the time for perfecting 

an appeal).
3

For these reasons, we sever Perez’s cross-appeal into appellate cause number 

07-23-00328-CV and dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a). Garza and Everett’s appeal shall continue to disposition under appellate 

cause number 07-23-00271-CV.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
#### Dr. Joseph T. DePAULA v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY.

No. 10480.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1979.

Pittman & Matheny, Tom H. Matheny and Charles G. Walker, Hammond, for plaintiff-appellant.

*CMXLVIINorman J. Robinson, Jr., Metairie, for defendant-appellee.

Before SAMUEL, SCHOTT and CHE-HARDY, JJ.

SAMUEL, Judge.

Formal charges against Dr. Joseph T. De-Paula, who is a licensed dentist, were brought before the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry regarding instances of conduct allegedly in violation of LSA-R.S. 37:776. The matter was set for hearing on January 12, 1979 at Hammond, Louisiana. At Dr. DePaula’s request the hearing was continued to February 16, 1979, but was again continued because of objections relative to notice to the doctor. Subsequently, Dr. De-Paula was notified the hearing would take place on April 3,1979 at the domicile of the Board in New Orleans.

The hearing was held as scheduled on April 3, 1979, but apparently under protest by Dr. DePaula because of an objection to the venue made on his behalf. Prior to the hearing, specifically on March 27, 1979, Dr. DePaula filed a petition in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction enjoining and prohibiting the Board from holding the April 3, 1979 meeting in New Orleans on the sole ground that the hearing could only be held in the Parish of Tangipo-hoa because that parish was Dr. DePaula’s domicile. The trial judge refused to issue the requested restraining order and ordered the Board to show cause on March 30, 1979 why the injunction should not issue.

On March 30, 1979 the matter was submitted for adjudication on the verified petition and the facts therein alleged and there was judgment denying the writ of injunction and dismissing the action. Dr. DePau-la has appealed. We affirm.

In support of his contention that New Orleans was an improper place in which to hold the hearing, appellant relies on the general rules of venue contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Article 42(1) which provides that an action against an individual domiciled in the state shall be brought in the parish of his domicile. That provision is applicable only to civil court actions; it is inapplicable to the administrative hearing in suit. As pointed out by the trial judge, the law applicable in this case is R.S. 37:779 which, in pertinent part, specifically provides: “The president [of the Board] shall designate the time and place of the hearing.”

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

*AFFIRMED.*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

,

Appellant,

v.

LORENZO JUAREZ

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00125

- C V

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCV1835)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the joint motion to dismiss the appeal and concludes

the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

We further order that costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring the same as stated in

the joint motion and this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 20 24

.

GINA M. PALAFOX

, Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.