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

                                                                    Exhibit 4(b)

                           CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION

                                       OF

                       SERIES E CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK

                                       OF

                            OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, INC.

                           (Pursuant to section 151(g)
                         of the General Corporation Law
                            of the State of Delaware)

                  Oxford Health Plans, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Corporation"), hereby certifies that the following resolution was duly adopted
by the Board of Directors of the Corporation as required by Section 151(g) of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware:

                  RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority granted to and vested
         in the Board of Directors in accordance with the provisions of the
         Certificate of Incorporation, the Board of Directors hereby states and
         declares that none of the 26,284 authorized shares of the Series E
         Cumulative Preferred Stock are outstanding, and none will be issued
         subject to the Certificate of Designations filed with respect to such
         series on February 12, 1999; and when such certificate setting forth
         this resolution becomes effective, it shall have the effect of
         eliminating from the Certificate of Incorporation all matters set forth
         in the Certificate of Designations with respect to the Series E
         Cumulative Preferred Stock and such Certificate of Designations itself.

<PAGE>

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Elimination has been
executed on behalf of the Corporation by its Secretary and attested by its Vice
President. this 15th day of March, 2001.

                                                OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, INC.

                                                By:./s./ DANIEL N. GREOIGRE
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   Daniel N. Gregoire
                                                   Executive Vice President,
                                                   Secretary and General
                                                   Counsel

Attest:

/s/ KURT B. THOMPSON:
--------------------
Title: Executive Vice President
      and Chief Financial Officer
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24524 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:11:16 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24524 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:11:16 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24524 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:11:16 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24524 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:11:16 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24524 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:11:16 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
###### Editorial Note on Part 139

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 139 appear at 69 FR 24069, May 3, 2004.

#### § 139.113 Deviations.

In emergency conditions requiring immediate action for the protection of life or property, the certificate holder may deviate from any requirement of subpart D of this part, or the Airport Certification Manual, to the extent required to meet that emergency. Each certificate holder who deviates from a requirement under this section must, within 14 days after the emergency, notify the Regional Airports Division Manager of the nature, extent, and duration of the deviation. When requested by the Regional Airports Division Manager, the certificate holder must provide this notification in writing.
§ 111.120 Pilot consent and right of review. ( a ) No reviewing entity may retrieve records in the PRD pertaining to any pilot prior to receiving that pilot's written consent authorizing the release of that pilot's information maintained in the PRD.
( b ) The consent required in paragraph (a) of this section must be documented by that pilot in accordance with § 111.310.
( c ) Any pilot who submits written consent to a reviewing entity in accordance with § 111.310(c) may request a copy of any State motor vehicle driving records the reviewing entity obtained regarding that pilot in accordance with § 111.110. The reviewing entity must provide to the pilot all copies of State motor vehicle driving records obtained within 30 days of receiving the request from that pilot.
osru C. MANN

- ..*- **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** AUSTIN

I?onorable

0. Xennedp county Attorney Bee county Liesrille,

Texan Deer lu. Keuaody~ bay 1, 1939

at86 to the tollawUq hrtl-

, or the P8nel Codor

nouat7, 

### olty,praolnot, 8oho01 alpal 8ebdlri8lon of 

### thl* TmmborQfQistak, 6X 41atriotOf of **an7 oourt,**  **w0eted** ~msral or apaafak **law ot**  **this 8tat0,**  **ok aa7**  ma&u **of the**  **Legl81a+** *tare, &all eppdat, of v+e Sof, tar confin the appointaentto any ofilee~ porltioa,olerkahip, employmentor duty, of any pmroon relatedwi0hS.n the aeaoaU degree by c?Yinltp or within tbo thiti degree by aanaan@inity to the person so appafgt- * or 80 rotlng, or to eny other member of say euell boaru, the Le~lOlelttue, or ooart of WUQh mob‘ peraon ee appolot~ or mttag may bo e **atimber, rh&n**  the aelaff, few, or ~ompaslratl~nHonorableG. Kennedy, %aay 1, 1939, Page 2

of such a.qmintee ia to be pcpld for, directly or indlrectly,

out of or from 'pub110 funds or fees of office of any kind or charactdrwbeteoever. * The inhibitions

set forth in this lmw ahall apply to and include the Governor,Lteutenant Governor,Speaker of the Howe of Representatives.

Railroad Cozmiesfoners. bead of departments

of the mambera0reny and &hed by or under tho eutlaorlty or aw genoxef **or** *welel law of thle State. members ot the 

### xA3giilature,

mapro,oommli8bBeM

* rocoraor8, **aldormoa** and **mmburr OZ**  m&a01 boarde of **lzteor** porated cltlee and towne, publio mhoo1tmleteea, OiriUuS end M8tbeM Oi bOardS.Oi @aM@mI 6f the St&o Unlverslty end of ltwmveral bmmehee, and of the vorloua 8tak **eduoatlom6l** irmtitutlone **and ot**  **thesrariou8 Stat** * elmmm8yauy instPtutloas, and of the p4nltent$aries. ml8 rqrurax%Itiotl Phall not'bo held to exolu60 frostha operationend ef

### root of thirr

law any perfmn lmlatled rithfn ita ~general

proT1810M." The relat10nnh5p or tatlmr an6 JOB iitmtirst **dograe of**  oonsan&alty **and oemm**  **wit&&n the**  **prohlb~tlon** ocmtalnedIn the nntl-nepotlm 

### 8tetutta8.

It is our opinion, nad you al-0 80 edVi86d,that clnploylq thm aon of the County ia-. whloh offioar pml ldo8a vertb s



### comls8lonern*

Court, tol aperrrl8~

the inproremmnt**to be**  nade **to the**  County **Court ECOWO**  **of** tb Couuty ln rhioh 8aoh lmprovemnt le.to,&epai& With County fund8, would be e violetion of the eat~*upotl8ala. Tour8 **vary** truly **A!l ’** **TORWW**

GELPERAL

OF TK%AS

&T%:iiS

A'ITORKEZGEKiZRAL **Assistant**
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10864]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2071-000]


Lakefield Junction, L.P.; Notice of Withdrawal

April 26, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 18, 2000, Lakefield Junction, L.P. filed 
a letter with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission withdrawing its 
Petition for Order Accepting Market-Based Rate Schedule for Filing and 
Granting Waivers and Blanket Approvals submitted for filing in this 
docket on March 31, 2000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
and protests should be filed on or before May 9, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10864 Filed 5-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3504 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2004 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to redesignate the American Indian Education Foundation as the National Fund for Excellence 

in American Indian Education. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 3504 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN EDU2 CATION FOUNDATION. 

3 (a) REDESIGNATION.—Section 501(a) of title V of 

4 the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

5 Act (25 U.S.C. 458bbb(a)), as added by Public Law 106– 

6 568, is amended by striking ‘‘the American Indian Edu7 cation Foundation’’ and inserting ‘‘a foundation to be 

8 known as the ‘National Fund for Excellence in American 

9 Indian Education’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Founda10 tion’)’’. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Title V of the In12 dian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

13 (25 U.S.C. 458bbb), as added by Public Law 106–568, 

14 is amended— 

15 (1) in the heading to read as follows: 

16 ‘‘TITLE V—NATIONAL FUND FOR 

17 EXCELLENCE IN AMERICAN 

18 INDIAN EDUCATION’’; 

19 and 

20 (2) in the heading of section 501 to read as fol21 lows: 
3 

HR 3504 RDS 

1 ‘‘SEC. 501. NATIONAL FUND FOR EXCELLENCE IN AMER2 ICAN INDIAN EDUCATION.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### J. C. "Jimmy" KNABE et al *v.*Carroll BALL et al

5-6087

485 S.W. 2d 745

Opinion delivered October 23, 1972

*Art Givens,*for appellants.

*E. H. Herrod,*for appellees.

PER CURIAM

The decree is affirmed for failure of appellants to comply with Rule 9 of the rules of this court. Even though appellees, after pointing out appellants’ noncompliance, supplied many of the deficiencies by supplementing the abstract of oral testimony and setting out the chancellor’s findings of fact, we are still unable to understand the testimony without any abstract of any of the pleadings, the court’s decree, or, most important of all, a plat and five or six photographic exhibits without which the testimony is not understandable. See *Baker*v. *Trotter,*252 Ark. 247, 486 S.W. 2d 7; *Reliable Finance Co.*v. *Rhodes,*252 Ark. 1077, 483 S.W. 2d 187.
§ 145.3 Definition of terms. For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Accountable manager* means the person designated by the certificated repair station who is responsible for and has the authority over all repair station operations that are conducted under part 145, including ensuring that repair station personnel follow the regulations and serving as the primary contact with the FAA.
( b ) *Article* means an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part.
( c ) *Directly in charge* means having the responsibility for the work of a certificated repair station that performs maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, or other functions affecting aircraft airworthiness. A person directly in charge does not need to physically observe and direct each worker constantly but must be available for consultation on matters requiring instruction or decision from higher authority.
( d ) *Line maintenance means* — ( 1 ) Any unscheduled maintenance resulting from unforeseen events; or
( 2 ) Scheduled checks that contain servicing and/or inspections that do not require specialized training, equipment, or facilities.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-1930

Filed August 18, 2021

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RONALD MICHAEL VANSICKLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, William A. Price, 

District Associate Judge.

Ronald Vansickle appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of driving 

while barred as a habitual offender. APPEAL DISMISSED.

Patrick W. O'Bryan, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2021).
2

SCOTT, Senior Judge.

Ronald Vansickle appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of driving 

while barred as a habitual offender. He argues his plea is invalid as not being 

entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel.

Judgment and sentence were entered in November 2019. Vansickle 

acknowledges, effective July 1, 2019, Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3) (Supp. 

2019), with exceptions, including establishment of good cause, prohibits a right of 

appeal when a defendant pleads guilty and section 814.7 prohibits us from 

considering claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See 2019 

Iowa Acts ch. 140, §§ 29, 31. He also appears to acknowledge the amended 

versions of the statute control because judgment and sentence were entered after 

the amendments’ effective date. See State v. Macke, 933 N.W.2d 226, 228 (Iowa 

2019).

Pursuant to section 814.6(1)(a)(3), Vansickle submits he has good cause 

to appeal because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his 

plea because he did not understand the plea offer, did not know of the possibility 

of being sent to prison, and felt pressured to plead guilty. 

Based on Vansickle’s limited argument, we are unable to find good cause 

because his conclusory and un-substantive ineffective-assistance claim is 

insufficient to facilitate our review, as he offers no direction on how competent 

representation would have changed the outcome. See Dunbar v. State, 515 

N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa 1996). And while Vansickle offers a passive suggestion that 

the new limits on a right to appeal do “not comport with due process and equal 
3

protection guarantees,” he offers no reason why, so we deem any constitutional 

argument waived. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3). Lastly, he offers no reason 

why, not considering section 814.6, we would be able to disregard the section 

814.7 prohibition against this court considering ineffective-assistance claims on 

direct appeal.

We dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70 -68

36 38 40 42 44



### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1000 18 12 06 00 05/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
§ 171.305 Requests for IFR procedure. ( a ) Each person who requests an IFR procedure based on an MLS facility which that person owns must submit the following information with that request: ( 1 ) A description of the facility and evidence that the equipment meets the performance requirements of §§ 171.309, 171.311, 171.313, 171.315, 171.317, 171.319, and 171.321 and is fabricated and installed in accordance with § 171.323.
( 2 ) A proposed procedure for operating the facility.
( 3 ) A proposed maintenance organization and a maintenance manual that meets the requirements of § 171.325.
( 4 ) A statement of intent to meet the requirements of this subpart.
( 5 ) A showing that the facility has an acceptable level of operational reliability and an acceptable standard of performance. Previous equivalent operational experience with a facility with identical design and operational characteristics will be considered in showing compliance with this subparagraph.
( b ) FAA inspects and evaluates the MLS facility; it advises the owner of the results, and of any required changes in the MLS facility or in the maintenance manual or maintenance organization. The owner must then correct the deficiencies, if any, and operate the MLS facility for an in-service evaluation by the FAA.
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:.

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1998 fiscal year:.

(A)I have reviewed the  activities and  performance  of the Servicer  during the
preceding  fiscal  year  under  the  terms  of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer Guide and to
the best of these  Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has  fulfilled all of its
duties,  responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements  throughout such
year,  or if there has been a default or failure of the  servicer to perform any
of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a description of each default
or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported to Norwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A.;


(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
servicer in good standing;

(C)I have confirmed  that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
Policy and any other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer  Guide
are in full force and effect;

(D)All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance  Policy (if
applicable) and Primary Mortgage Insurance Policy (if applicable),  with respect
to each Mortgaged Property,  have been paid and that all such insurance policies
are in full force and effect;

(E)All  real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on any
Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses have not
been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property, the reason for the non-payment
has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;


(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G)All annual  reporting of Foreclosure and  Abandonment of Mortgage  Property
required per section 6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the Internal  Revenue Code,
respectively, have been prepared and filed.

Certified By:

Officer

Vice President
Title

4/2/99
Date
# Official Journal L 364/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 364 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 633 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 364

English edition

Legislation

Volume 633 November 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1604 of 23 October 2020 determining, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, reference values for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023 for each producer or importer which has lawfully placed hydrofluorocarbons on the market in the Union from 1 January 2015, as reported under that Regulation
  (notified under document C(2020) 9500)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1604 of 23 October 2020 determining, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, reference values for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023 for each producer or importer which has lawfully placed hydrofluorocarbons on the market in the Union from 1 January 2015, as reported under that Regulation
  (notified under document C(2020) 9500)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2020) 9500)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### THE THEODORE TIEDEMANN CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. D-836.

Decided June 5, 1933]

*Mr. Raymond M. Hudson*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. W. W. Scott,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugg,*for the defendant.

*21Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

On November 1, 1918,- the plaintiff and the defendant, represented by John B. Holt, major, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, entered into a formal written contract *22whereby the plaintiff agreed to perform certain services for the Government at specified prices named in the contract. The contract was for the period beginning November 1,1918, and ending June 30, 1919. The contract contained a cancellation clause, and the Government on December 20, 1918, forwarded to the plaintiff a cancellation contract but the plaintiff refused, to sign. There is no dispute that the Government paid the plaintiff for all the work performed, but this suit is brought to recover the value of rental space of a portion of plaintiff’s premises on the ground that the conversations and correspondence previous to the execution of the contract show the Government intended that the entire plant of the plaintiff should be devoted to Government work exclusively, and that the plaintiff was prevented from re-leasing part of its leasehold by the acts of the agents of the defendant.

There is no allegation of fraud or mistake in the execution of the contract. The contention is that the negotiations leading up to the execution show that the parties intended something different from what is plainly and clearly expressed in the formal document. The agreement was reduced to writing and what transpired before that time is irrelevant. In *Simpson*v. *United States,*172 U.S. 372, 379, Chief Justice White, quoting from a previous decision of the Supreme Court, said:

> “All this is irrelevant matter. The written contract merged all previous negotiations, and is presumed, in law, to express the final understanding of the parties.”

This is a service contract whereby the plaintiff undertook and agreed to perform certain services for the Government only when called upon, and only when material was furnished by the Government. There is nothing requiring the defendant to furnish and deliver to the plaintiff any particular quantity of work to be performed. The plaintiff knew when it entered into the contract that it was only to be called upon when the need of its services was required. The contract was not canceled and therefore no damages can be recovered. It expired by its own limitation. Furthermore, the contract contains a clause which shows the Government *23work was to be given a preference and by this clause it is plain that the exclusive use of the plant was not intended.

The plaintiff cannot recover. The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*and GeeeN, Judge, concur.

Booth, *Ghief*Justice, did not hear this case, on account of illness, and took no part in its decision.
#### § 171.269 Marker beacon performance requirements.

ISMLS marker beacon equipment must meet the performance requirements prescribed in subpart H of this part.