alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


    
      
        

        

      

      EXHIBIT
10.6

      


      


      


      


      


      


      


      


       

      


      


      NEVADA
CERTIFICATE OF

      DESIGNATION
REGARDING SERIES B

      PREFERRED
STOCK OF

      PHYSICIANS
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

       

       

       

       

       

      
 

      
        
           


        

        
          1

          
            

          

        

        
           


        

      


      [State
Seal]

      ROSS
MILLER

      Secretary
of State

      204 North
Carson Street, Suite 1

      Carson
City, Nevada 89701-4299

      (775)
684-5703

      Website:  scretaryofstate.biz

      
        	 	
                Filed
      in the office of

                Ross
      Miller Secretary of State

                Document
      Number:

                20080709482-20

              
	 	 
	
                Certificate of
      Designation 

                (Pursuant
      to NRS 78.1955  

              	
                Date
      Filed:

                10/27/2008 7:26
      AM

                In the
      office of

              
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
                Entity
      Number:

                C26333-1996

              
	 	 


      

       

      Certificate
of Designation

      For
Nevada Profit Corporation

      (Pursuant
to NRS 78.1955)

       

      


       

      
        	1.	Name of
      corporation:
	 	PHYSICIANS
      HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
	 	 
	2.	By
      resolution of the board of directors pursuant to a provision in the
      articles of incorporation this certificate establishes
      the  following regarding the voting powers, designations,
      preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of the
      following class or series of stock:
	 	PREFERRED SHARES
      DIESGNATION:
	 	       “CONVERTIBLE
      PREFERRRED STOCK” VOTING POWER:
	 	          ONE VOTE PER
      SHARE OF CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK.
	 	       PREFERENCES:
	 	          PREFERRED STOCK
      IS SENIOR IN RANK TO AND HAS A LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE OVER COMMON
      STOCK.
	 	       LIMITATIONS,
      RESTRICTIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS:
	 	
                CONVERTIBLE
      PREFERRED STOCK IS CONVERTIBLE AT THE HOLDER’S OPTION TO COMMON STOCK AT A
      RATIO OF ONE SHARE COMMON FOR EACH SHARE OF CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED
      STOCK.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AFORE STATES, CONVERTIBLE
      PREFERRED STOCK HAS ALL OF THE SAME LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RELATIVE
      RIGHTS AS COMMON STOCK.

              
	4.	
                Effective
      date of filing (optional):

              


      

       

      
      

       

      
        
          	4.	Officer
      Signature: 	/s/ Robert
      Trinka	 


        

         

      

      Filing
Fee:  $175.00

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

      


      This form
must be accompanied by appropriate fees.


      
        
           


        

        
          2
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: FAA- 2014 - 0146 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM243AD

84 - 28 - 12 --- 7/23 /1 2

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### CLEVELAND & MAHONING VALLEY COACH CO v FLAVELL, Admr.

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Nov 3, 1928

Leighninger & Church, Youngstown, for Coach Co.

Anderson & Lamb, Youngstown, for Flavell.

POLLOCK, J.

The defendant calims that the statement made in behalf of the plaintiff at the opening of the case to the jury was not proper. It was claimed that the attorney making the statement was arguing the case. The objection is just general. No part of this statement is called to the attention of the court that was desired to be excepted to and asked the court to caution the jury. The exception was too general, and, in fact, we do ’ not see any great transgression of the rule in the statement.

The next error complained of is in the admission of the life insurance table of expectancy of life. This was objected to by the defendant and overruled, and it is urged that this was error on the ground that taking into consideration the character of the defendant’s work, that he would not be able to continue to work during his entire expectancy of life.

In the case of Vicksburg, et al Ry Co. v Putnam, 118 U. S., beginning on page 546, in a case involving, damages for injury and death, the Supreme Court said:

> “The standard of life and annuity tables are competent evidence for the consideration of the jury, but not absolute guides to control their decision.”

This testimony was competent and there was no error in its admission.

The next error complained of is in the court refusing to give defendant’s request No. 5. This request embodied the proposition that the jurors must not be swayed by sympathy for the injured party nor by passion and prejudice against the defendant. It is sufficient to say that this is not asking the court to so charge a legal proposition involved in the case. It is simply a cautionary provision and we do not think it was mandatory on the court to give such a request, and there was no error in the refusal.

The next error claimed of is that the verdict is excessive. Under the tables of annuity presented the deceased had an expectancy of life of over thirty years. He was earning something like $3600.00 a year when the injury occurred which took his life. In addition to the tables of expectancy of life there is testimony as *340to his physical condition and his ability to earn. If he had lived out near his expectancy, the amount that he would earn reducing, it by proper proportion of the amount required to support himself would have been much greater than $25,000. It is true that this $25,000 would be paid at the beginning of this expectancy and not distributed through the years, but we can not say that $25,000 is more than the cash value of his life to his wife and children, and the judgment is affirmed.

Farr and Roberts, JJ, concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY GAUTHIER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOHN J. STILES, DOES 1-7,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-56096

D.C. No. 5:08-cv-1488-SJO-RC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Jeremy Gauthier, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs by various prison medical personnel. We

FILED

OCT 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-56096

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss,

271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gauthier’s action because neither his

disagreement with the dosage or type of pain medicine administered after his nose

surgery, nor his dissatisfaction with the denial of prescription strength pain

medicine for two days, constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (difference in

opinion between an inmate and medical personnel insufficient to constitute

indifference to medical needs); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir.

1998) (alleged delays in administering pain medication, without more, do not

constitute deliberate indifference). 

The district court also properly dismissed Gauthier’s action with prejudice

because the defects in his claim could not be cured by amendment. See McKesson

HBOC v. New York State Common Ret. Fund, 339 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

Gauthier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 11**

** **

**CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS**

 

This Code applies to Rhodia’sprincipal financial officers and controllers and principal accounting andfinancial communications officers, or persons performing similar functions(“Financial Managers”).

 

The purpose of this Code is toembody such standards as are reasonably necessary to deter wrongdoing and topromote:

 

•      honestand ethical conduct,

•      full, fair, accurate, timelyand understandable disclosure in the periodic reports and documents required tobe filed or submitted by Rhodia, and

•      compliancewith applicable laws.

 

Financial Managers play animportant role within the corporate governance of Rhodia.  Therefore, Financial Managers are asked torespect the following principles and rules that must govern their professionaland ethical conduct within Rhodia:

 

•      to act with honesty andintegrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personaland professional relationships;

•      toprovide information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant, timely andunderstandable;

•      to act in good faith,responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, without misrepresentingmaterial facts or allowing their independent judgement to be subordinated.

•      tocomply with applicable laws, rules, regulations including applicable accountingrules and adhere to the Code;

•      to promptly report to theirdirect manager and, if necessary, to RHODIA’S CFO and Internal Audit Director,difficulties encountered with the implementation of the Code or its eventualviolations;

•      topromote ethical behaviour as responsible partners in their work environment andcommunity.

•      to respect theconfidentiality of any information employed or entrusted to them in the courseof their work, and to use it in a responsible way;

•      toachieve responsible use of and control over all assets and resources employedor entrusted to them.

 

Furthermore, all employees mustrespect the rules outlined in Rhodia’s Compliance policy which contains thestandards that must govern their professional and ethical conduct withinRhodia.

 

 

Date: December 11th, 2003

 

 
| /s/  Jean-Pierre CLAMADIEU |              | /s/ Pierre  PROT |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------|------------------|--------|
| Jean-Pierre  CLAMADIEU     | Pierre PROT       |
| RHODIA’S CEO          | RHODIA’S CFO |

 

 
| Name:      |   |   |
|------------|--------|--------|
|       |
| Signature: |   |   |
|       |
| Date:      |   |   |
|            |        |        |  |  |  |

 

----
§ 1612.3 Open meeting policy. ( a ) All meetings of the Commission shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this part.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided in § 1612.4, every portion of every meeting shall be open to public observation. Public observation does not include participation or disruptive conduct by observers. Any attempted participation or disruptive conduct by observers shall be cause for removal of persons so engaged at the discretion of the presiding member of the agency.
( c ) When holding open meetings, the Commission shall provide ample space, sufficient visibility, and adequate acoustics for persons in attendance at the meeting.
( d ) Observers may take still photographs and use portable sound recorders which do not require electrical outlets. Persons may take pictures only at the beginning of a meeting and may not use flash equipment. Permission to use non-battery operated sound recorders and visual recorders must be sought reasonably in advance of a meeting. Such request must be made in writing to the Commission through the Office of the Executive Secretariat. The Commission may permit such activities to be conducted under specified limitations which insure proper decorum and minimum interference with the meeting. In all cases, audio or visual recording shall not disrupt or otherwise impede the meeting.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Flushing, New York. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, June 7, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eileen Cain at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988), that an operational meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, June 7, 2000, 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Queens Borough Public Library at 41-17 Main Street, Flushing, N.Y. 11355. If you are in need of a hearing impaired or a language interpreter or for more information please contact Eileen Cain. Mrs. Cain can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. The public is invited to make oral comments from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 7, 2000. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555, or write Eileen Cain, CAP Office, P.O. Box R, Brooklyn, NY 11202. 

The Agenda will include the following: introductions of the panel and open discussions with the public. 

# Note:

Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.

Dated: April 28, 2000. 

M. Cathy VanHorn, 

Director, CAP, Communications & Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 00-12203 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARREN EUGENE SHERMAN-BEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MATTHEW L. CATE, Secretary of the

California Department of Correction &

Rehabilitation, official capacity; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-55337

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09281-RGK-RZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Darren Eugene Sherman-Bey appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

MAR 4 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren

v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sherman-Bey’s action because

Sherman-Bey failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants consciously

disregarded a serious risk to his health when delayed renewal of an exemption

from prison policy allowing him to continue carrying his prescription pain

medicine on his person. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847 (1994) (a

prison official acts with deliberate indifference by failing to take reasonable

measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate’s health); Toguchi

v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “[d]eliberate

indifference is a high legal standard,” and that medical malpractice or gross

negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-16805
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



|2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                                                     
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ John S. Wilks                                                                                   
|                      |  |     |  | John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### § 1614.309 Enforcement of Special Panel decision.

The Board shall, upon receipt of the decision of the Special Panel, order the agency concerned to take any action appropriate to carry out the decision of the Panel. The Board's regulations regarding enforcement of a final order of the Board shall apply. These regulations are set out at 5 CFR part 1201, subpart E.
#### § 100.502 Application.

This regulation (§§ 100.501-100.570) applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency, except for programs or activities conducted outside the United States that do not involve individuals with handicaps in the United States.

[53 FR 25884, 25885, July 8, 1988. Redesignated at 59 FR 37159, July 21, 1994, and amended at 60 FR 32587, June 23, 1995]
#### § 13.24 Anti-kickback.

All paid sick leave used by employees performing on or in connection with covered contracts must be paid free and clear and without subsequent deduction (except as set forth in § 13.23), rebate, or kickback on any account. Kickbacks directly or indirectly to the contractor or to another person for the contractor's benefit for the whole or part of the paid sick leave are prohibited.
#### § 1607.11 Disparate treatment.

The principles of disparate or unequal treatment must be distinguished from the concepts of validation. A selection procedure—even though validated against job performance in accordance with these guidelines—cannot be imposed upon members of a race, sex, or ethnic group where other employees, applicants, or members have not been subjected to that standard. Disparate treatment occurs where members of a race, sex, or ethnic group have been denied the same employment, promotion, membership, or other employment opportunities as have been available to other employees or applicants. Those employees or applicants who have been denied equal treatment, because of prior discriminatory practices or policies, must at least be afforded the same opportunities as had existed for other employees or applicants during the period of discrimination. Thus, the persons who were in the class of persons discriminated against during the period the user followed the discriminatory practices should be allowed the opportunity to qualify under less stringent selection procedures previously followed, unless the user demonstrates that the increased standards are required by business necessity. This section does not prohibit a user who has not previously followed merit standards from adopting merit standards which are in compliance with these guidelines; nor does it preclude a user who has previously used invalid or unvalidated selection procedures from developing and using procedures which are in accord with these guidelines.
#### In the Matter of Gomez Foundation For Mill House, Appellant, v Town of Newburgh Planning Board et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 554]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the respondent Town of Newburgh Planning Board, both dated August 17, 1995, which, *inter alia,*approved the preliminary subdivision plat submitted by the respondent Kelly Woodward Homes, Inc., the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Leavitt, J.), dated July 7, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 5, 1998, granting the motion of the respondent Town of Newburgh Planning Board to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join a necessary party, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32





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 Quarterly Report of Intelligent Living Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.



DATED:

April 14, 2011

/s/ Michael F. Holloran

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

Michael F. Holloran;

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### § 1602.44 School systems' or districts' exemption from reporting requirements.

If it is claimed that the preparation or filing of the report would create undue hardship, the school system or district may apply to the Commission for an exemption from the requirements set forth in this part by submitting to the Commission or its delegate a specific proposal for an alternative reporting system prior to the date on which the report is due.

[61 FR 33660, June 28, 1996]