alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEAN HELLER                                             FILED # C 6214-93
SECRETARY OF STATE                                          NOV 09 2004
204 NORTH CARSON STREET, SUITE 1                           IN OFFICE OF
CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89701-4289                           /S/ DEAN HELLER
(775) 884 5708                                   DEAN HELLER, SECRETARY OF STATE
WEBSITE: SECRETARYOFSTATE.BIZ

-----------------------------------
             AMENDMENT TO
      CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
  AFTER ISSUANCE OF CLASS OR SERIES
      (PURSUANT TO NRS 78.1955)
-----------------------------------

Important: Read attached instructions         ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
before completing form.

             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
             ------------------------------------------------------
                         FOR NEVADA PROFIT CORPORATIONS
                         ------------------------------
          (PURSUANT TO NRS 78.1955 - AFTER ISSUANCE OF CLASS OR SERIES)

1.   Name of corporation:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GATEWAY DISTRIBUTORS, LTD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.   Stockholder approval pursuant to statute has been obtained.

3.   The class or series of stock being amended:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series A Preferred Stock, 200,000 shares
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.   By a resolution adopted by the board of directors, the certificate of
designation is being amended as follows or the new class or series is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series A Preferred Stock is to consist of 100,000,000 shares


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

                                         ---------------------------------------
5.   Effective date of filing (optional):
                                         ---------------------------------------

6.   Officer Signature (Required):  [ILLEGIBLE]
                                  ----------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper
fees may cause this filing to be rejected.

FILING FEE: $175.00

SUBMIT DUPLICATE

This form must be accompanied               Nevada Secretary of State AM 78.1955
by appropriate fees.                                                  After 2003
See attached fee schedule.                                  Revised on: 10/03/03


<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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of UC Hub Group, Inc. for the Quarter ending January 31, 2010, I, Larry Wilcox, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Larry D. WilcoxLarry D. WilcoxPrincipal Executive Officer & Principal Financial OfficerMarch 12, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          63,503
<SECURITIES>                                    10,894
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                       129
<INVENTORY>                                        108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,304
<PP&E>                                           4,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                     625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,741
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           195
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,328
<SALES>                                         20,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,911
<CGS>                                           17,487
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,487
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   448
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,798)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,798)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,798)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 18.605 Competency of judge as witness.

The judge presiding at the hearing may not testify in that hearing as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Edward F. Mehm, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Crossing Preferred Corporation(the “registrant”);  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-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;  b)  [Not applicable]  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 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: May 13, 2005  By:    /s/ Edward F. Mehm      Edward F. Mehm
#### § 11.2 Applicability.

Although all Department of Labor agencies are subject to NEPA, only three of its agencies routinely propose or consider actions which may require the preparation of environment assessments or environmental impact statements. These are the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which acts pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651, *et seq.*); the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which acts pursuant to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 801, *et seq.*); and the Office of Job Corps which purchases and leases land and constructs Job Corps centers pursuant to the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801, *et seq.*). Therefore, these procedures have been designed primarily with the duties and rulemaking processes of these agencies in mind. If and when other Department of Labor agencies propose actions requiring environmental impact analyses, they shall use these procedures, to the extent that they are applicable, in performing such analyses.

[45 FR 51188, Aug. 1, 1980, as amended at 72 FR 37098, July 9, 2007]
No. 17,131.

#### The Indiana Racing Association *v.*Allen et al.

Supreme Court *Practice.*— Sill *of Exceptions.*— Motion *for New*Trial. —No question can he considered upon a motion for a new trial where no hill of exceptions is in the record.

*Same.*— Form *of Judgment or Decree.*— No *Motion to Modify.*— No question can he raised, on appeal, as to the form of a judgment or decree where no motion was made in the trial court to modify the same.

Prom the Lake Circuit Court.

*J. B. Peterson,*for appellant.

*T. J. Wood,*for appellees.

Hackney, J.

— The appellee Allen obtained, in the lower court, a judgment and, a decree foreclosing a mechanics’ lien for $7,170.59 against the appellant and its property. The only assignments of error in this court are that the complaint was insufficient, and that the court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial. The first assignment is not argued, and is therefore waived. The second assignment seeks to present the various causes assigned for a new trial, all of which, save the first, depend entirely upon the evidence either as to its sufficiency or as to its admissibility. The record contains no bill of exceptions, and we are, therefore, without proof of the truth of such recitals in the motion, and no question can be considered upon them. *Clouser*v. *Ruckman, Admr.,*104 Ind. 588; *Hyatt*v. *Clements,*65 Ind. 12; *Vawter*v. *Gilliland,*55 Ind. 278; *Hopkins*v. *Greensburg, etc., Turnpike Co.,*46 Ind. 187; *Skillen*v. *Skillen, Jr.,*41 Ind. 122; *Indianapolis, etc., Co.*v. *First Nat’l Bank, etc.,*33 Ind. 302.

The first cause assigned for a new trial was “that the finding and judgment of the court is contrary to law.”' *438The argument in support of this question is that the description of the property, as contained in the notice of lien, was defective, and authorized no decree- foreclosing the lien. So far as this question may be said to relate to the description in the notice, we may say, as already said, that the evidence has not been presented to us, and we have no support for the truth of this proposition. So far as the argument may be intended to attack the form of the decree or the sufficiency of the description therein to cover the appellant’s property we have the sufficient objection to considering the proposition in the failure of the appellant to move a modification of the decree either in adding to the description or in striking out that made. *Allen*v. *Berndt,*133 Ind. 355; *Berkey, etc., Co.*v. *Hascall,*123 Ind. 502; *Walter*v. *Walter,*117 Ind. 247; *People’s, etc., Assn.*v. *Spears,*115 Ind. 297; *Barnes*v. *Conner,*39 Ind. 294; *Rardin*v. *Walpole,*38 Ind. 146; *O’Brien*v. *Peterman,*34 Ind. 556.

Filed Feb. 7, 1895.

No question is made as to the sufficiency of the personal judgment. Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed with damages in the sum of four per centum of the gross amount of the judgment of the circuit court.
#### Rankin Funeral Home, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Rhode Island Insurance Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. (Action Nos. 1 and 2.) Rankin Funeral Home, Inc., Respondent, *v.*United Firemen’s Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Appellent, Impleaded with Others. (Action No. 3.)

Argued January 19, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*547
      *Harry Z. Harris*for appellants.

*Heiby W. Ungerer*for respondent.

In each case, judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 256.2 Applicability. ( a ) This part applies to any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent that operates an electronic airline information system, *e.g.,* GDS, corporate booking tool, or internet flight search tool, that combines the schedules, fares or availability information of more than one air carrier or foreign air carrier for the distribution or sale in the United States of interstate or foreign air transportation.
( b ) This part applies only if the electronic airline information system is displayed on a Web site marketed to consumers in the United States or on a proprietary display available to travel agents, business entities, or a limited segment of consumers of air transportation in the United States.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at 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 lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s 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). I H / 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 J O SE LU I S M A LD O N A D O - ESCO BA R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 73539 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 418- 634 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J os e L ui s M a l dona do- E s c obar , anat i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea lfr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is ap p lic atio n f o rc an c e llatio n o f

r e m o v a l. W e 

# FI LED DE C 30 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI H / Res ea r ch 06- 73539 2 have 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 de novo que s t i ons of law , Sa ndoval-L ua v. G on zales , 4 9 9 F . 3 d1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 6 - 2 7 ( 9 thC i r . 2 0 0 7 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . M al d o n ad o -E sco b ar d o es n o tch al l en g e th e ag en cy’ s co n cl u si o n th ath i s 2 0 0 2 c o n v ic tio n f

o rp o s s e s s io n o f

ac o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e in v io latio n o f C a lif o rn ia H e a l th & Sa f

e tyCo d e § 1 1 3 7 7 ( a ) r e n d e r e dh i m i n a d mi s s i b l e p u r s u an tt o 8 U . S. C. § 1 18 2(a) (2)( A )( i )( II ). A s thi s c on vi ct i on occurre d b ef ore M al do nado -E sc ob arhad ac qu iredse v en ye ar s o f c o n ti n u o u s r es id en ce , w e a g re e w ith th e a g en cy ’s c o n c lu s io n th at h e is n o t s tatu to r ilye lig ib le f o rc an c e llatio n o f

r e m o v a l. See 8 U . S . C . § 1229b( a ) ( 2) , ( d) ( 1) . B e c aus e ourc onc l us i on i s di s pos i t i ve of M a l dona doE s c obar ’ s e l i gi bi l i tyf

orc anc e l l at i on of

r e m ova l , w e do notc ons i de rhi s c ont e nt i on r e g ar d in g h is 2 0 0 1 c o n v ic tio n . W e c an n o t c o n s id e rth e n e w e v id e n c e M a ld o n a d o - E s c o b ars ub m itte dw ith h is m o tio n to r e m an da s o u rr e v ie w is lim ite dto th e a d m in is tr ativ e r e c o r d . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ) . W e th e r e f o r e d e n yM a ld o n a d o - E s c o b ar ’s m o tio n to r e m an d . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; Al ta wi l v . I NS , 17 9 F . 3d79 1, 79 2-93 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( o r d e r ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
###### Editorial Note on Part 47

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

#### § 47.67 Evidence of ownership.

Before using a Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate, AC Form 8050-6, for operating the aircraft, the holder of the certificate (other than a manufacturer) must send to the Registry evidence of ownership under § 47.11. An Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2, or its equivalent, may be used as evidence of ownership. There is no recording fee.

[Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41983, July 20, 2010]
[No. 28179-1-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Thomas James Thomas, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 01-1-01081-4, Jay B. Roof, J., entered December 7, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.
Business Consulting Agreement between General Automotive Company and The Byrd Fi



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Consulting Agreement 
 This Business Consulting
Agreement is entered into on October 30, 2009 by General Automotive Company, Inc. (“Company”) and Byrd Financial Group, LLC. (“Consultant”) 
  

	 	1.	Company is a publicly traded automotive importer and parts supplier, and Consultant is a business consulting firm, specializing in capital formation strategies,
strategic growth initiatives, and merger and acquisition consultation. 

  

	 	2.	Company desires to engage Consultant as a business consultant, in the above areas, and Consultant accepts such terms as follows. This Agreement shall be for a period of
12 months from the date hereof. 

  

	 	3.	Consultant will advise Company in the specific areas listed above. Consultant is not an investment banker or broker, however, Consultant will assist the Company in it
capital formation strategies. Consultant will not be compensated in any way as a result of any capital raise efforts. Consultant does not represent that it can raise capital for Company, and this agreement is not conditioned upon same.


  

	 	4.	In lieu of cash compensation, Company shall pay for the services of Consultant through the issuance of 4,000,000 shares of restricted common stock of Company. Said
shares shall be issued in full immediately, and are deemed to be fully vested and earned upon the execution hereof. Consultant may assign all or a portion of these shares as it deems appropriate. Consultant intends to devote up to 15 hours per week
on behalf of Company. Said work may be in phone, in person, or otherwise, and Consultant will not have any specific hours of work in this regard. 

  

	 	5.	This Agreement may be terminated at any time, for any reason, by the Company, however, termination shall not effect the shares that are issued to Consultant.


  








	 	6.	Consultant agrees to act in the best interest of the Company at all times, maintain confidentiality of any and all information that comes into his possession unless
otherwise authorized, to use his best efforts to further the business interests of the Company during the term of this Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof. The parties agree that Consultant shall not receive any material non-public
information from Company at either time, nor shall it, or any of its officers or employees be considered an affiliate or insider. Rather, the efforts of Consultant shall be limited strictly to the specific matters and areas referenced above, and
shall not involve general management or business issues. 

  

	 	7.	This Agreement is entered into in Orlando, Florida and enforceable under Florida Law. 

 Wherefore the parties have executed this Agreement this 30th day of October, 2009. 
  

							
	General Automotive Company, Inc.	 		 	
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Dan Valladao
	 		 	 /s/ Jim Byrd

		 	Dan Valladao, CEO	 		 	Jim Byrd, for Byrd Financial Group, LLC
§ 13.204 Appearances and rights of parties. ( a ) Any party may appear and be heard in person.
( b ) Any party may be accompanied, represented, or advised by an attorney or representative designated by the party, and may be examined by that attorney or representative in any proceeding governed by this subpart. An attorney or representative who represents a party must file a notice of appearance in the action, in the manner provided in § 13.210, and must serve a copy of the notice of appearance on each party, and on the administrative law judge, if assigned, in the manner provided in § 13.211, before participating in any proceeding governed by this subpart. The attorney or representative must include the name, address, and telephone number, and, if available, fax number and email address, of the attorney or representative in the notice of appearance.
( c ) Any person may request a copy of a document in the record upon payment of reasonable costs. A person may keep an original document, data, or evidence, with the consent of the administrative law judge, by substituting a legible copy of the document for the record.
§ 1630.1 Purpose, applicability, and construction. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to implement title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA or Amendments Act), 42 U.S.C. 12101, *et seq.,* requiring equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The ADA as amended, and these regulations, are intended to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination.
( b ) *Applicability.* This part applies to “covered entities” as defined at § 1630.2(b).
( c ) *Construction* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in this part, this part does not apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 790-794a, as amended), or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title.
( 2 ) *Relationship to other laws.* This part does not invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any Federal law or law of any State or political subdivision of any State or jurisdiction that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities than is afforded by this part.
( 3 ) *State workers' compensation laws and disability benefit programs.* Nothing in this part alters the standards for determining eligibility for benefits under State workers' compensation laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
( 4 ) *Broad coverage.* The primary purpose of the ADAAA is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the Amendments Act's purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability. The question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis.
[76 FR 16999, Mar. 25, 2011]