alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
damexh4_2.htm






Exhibit 4.2

 

 

AMENDMENT NUMBER 5

TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF

HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION





1.           The name of the corporation for which this Certificate of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation is being filed is Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Corporation").





2.           The original Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, as subsequently amended, were filed on July 22, 1999 (the "Articles of Incorporation").





3.           The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation shall be amended as follows:





A.           Article I is amended to read as follows:





The name of the Corporation is DAM HOLDINGS INC.





B.           Article IV is amended to add a new subparagraph (d) as follows:





(d)           Upon the later of September 14, 2009 or the date on which this Certificate of Amendment is filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Nevada (the "Effective Date"), every two-hundred (200) shares of common stock, par value $.00015 per share (the "Common Stock"),
of the Corporation issued and outstanding and of record on the books of the Corporation at the close of business on the Effective Date (the "Old Shares") will automatically be converted into one (1) share of Common Stock (the "New Shares") of the Corporation. No fractional shares will be issued, and no cash or other consideration will be issued in lieu thereof.
§ 1910.17 Effective dates. ( a ) - ( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Except whenever any employment or place of employment is, or becomes, subject to any safety and health standard prescribed in part 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, or 1926 of this title on a date before August 27, 1971, by virtue of the Construction Safety Act or the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, that occupational safety and health standard as incorporated by reference in this subpart shall also become effective under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 on that date.
[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 61 FR 9235, Mar. 7, 1996]
#### Hazelwood *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided December 19, 1916.

73 South. 827.)

New Trial; Review. — In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a motion for a new trial in a criminal case cannot be reviewed although authorized by the statute; nor will the court review the charges requested by and refused to a defendant where there is no bill of exceptions.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.

J. H. Hazelwood was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Frank S. Andres, and E. G. Hewitt, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

EVANS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the prohibition statute. There is no bill of exceptions incorporated in the transcript, and the appeal comes here on the record proper.

We have repeatedly held that written requests to charge, refused to appellant, cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of *exceptions.*— Clark’s *Case,*14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291; *Dorough’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208; *Mitchell’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 71 South. 982; *Clay’s Case,*14 Ala. 665, 71 South. 982. For the same reason, we cannot review appellant’s motion for a new trial, now authorized in criminal cases by Acts 1915, p. *722.*— Mitchell’s *Case, infra,*72 South. 507; *Amos Smith’s Case, infra,*73 South. 824.

The proceedings and judgment entry, as disclosed by the record proper, appear in all things to be regular, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Temple, Appellant, *v.*Joseph H. Brophy, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, Respondent.

Submitted December 4, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*488
      *Joseph Temple,*appellant, in person.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Edward T. Boyle*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Daniel Dror,
CEO, President and Chairman of American International Industries, Inc., pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

I, Daniel Dror, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-QSB of American International Industries, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. As the registrant's certifying officer, 
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and
procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to the undersigned by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report management's conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  I have disclosed, based on my most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.  I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 15, 2005, 
Daniel Dror, CEO, 
President and Chairman/s/ Daniel Dror
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 UC HUB Group, Inc., a Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,
2004,  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  Larry  Wilcox,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of we, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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)     The  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of we.

Dated  January 18, 2005.

                                       UC HUB GROUP, INC.



                                       By  /s/Larry Wilcox
                                         -------------------------------------
                                       Larry Wilcox, Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
ISG Resources, Inc.

         Statement re Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                          (In thousands, except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Year          Year       2 1/2 Months  9 1/2 Months
                                                 Ended         Ended          Ended        Ended
                                              December 31,   December 31,  December 31, October 13,  Year Ended December 31,
                                                                                                     ----------------------
                                                  1999          1998          1997         1997        1996       1995
                                             ----------------------------  ------------ ------------ --------- ------------
Fixed Charges:
<S>                                                <C>           <C>             <C>        <C>       <C>          <C>
     Interest on debt                              $ 12,690      $ 8,874         $ 628      $ 4,160   $ 4,853      $ 4,081
     Amortization of debt issuance costs                702          464             -            -         -            -
     Interest portion of rental expense               2,531        2,038           420        1,448     2,045        2,016
                                             ----------------------------  ------------ ------------ --------- ------------
           Total fixed charges                     $ 15,923     $ 11,376       $ 1,048      $ 5,608   $ 6,898      $ 6,097
                                             ============================  ============ ============ ========= ============

Earnings:
     Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing
       operations                                     $ 285      $ 4,808         $ 517     $ (2,478)  $(2,232)    $ (2,541)
     Add back fixed charges                          15,923       11,376         1,048        5,608     6,898        6,097
                                             ----------------------------  ------------ ------------ --------- ------------
            Total earnings                         $ 16,208     $ 16,184       $ 1,565      $ 3,130   $ 4,666      $ 3,556
                                             ============================  ============ ============ ========= ============

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                     1.02         1.42          1.49         0.56      0.68         0.58
                                             ============================  ============ ============ ========= ============

Deficit of Earnings to Fixed Charges                    $ -          $ -           $ -      $ 2,478   $ 2,232      $ 2,541
                                             ============================  ============ ============ ========= ============


</TABLE>
#### § 95.21 Puerto Rico Mountainous Area.

The area bounded by the following coordinates:

Beginning at latitude 18°22′ N., longitude 66°58′ W., thence to latitude 18°19′ N., longitude 66°06′ W.; thence to latitude 18°20′ N., longitude 65°50′ W.; thence to latitude 18°20′ N., longitude 65°42′ W.; thence to latitude 18°03′ N., longitude 65°52′ W.; thence to latitude 18°02′ N., longitude 65°51′ W.; thence to latitude 17°59′ N., longitude 65°55′ W.; thence to latitude 18°05′ N., longitude 66°57′ W.; thence to latitude 18°11′ N., longitude 67°07′ W.; thence to latitude 18°22′ N., longitude 66°58′ W.; the point of beginning.

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC26SE91.008/EC26SE91.008_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC26SE91.008/EC26SE91.008_original_size.png)

[Amdt. 88, [27 FR 4536](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/27-FR-4536), May 8, 1962; [27 FR 5603](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/27-FR-5603), June 13, 1962. Redesignated by Amdt. 1-1, [28 FR 6719](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/28-FR-6719), June 29, 1963]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12218]



[[Page 31159]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. MG00-7-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Filing

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 21, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) filed revised standards of conduct to reflect 
certain changes in office space shared with one of its marketing 
affiliates and to reflect certain changes in names and corporate 
organizational information since its previous standards of conduct 
filing in Docket No. MG98-5-000.
    Texas Gas states that it has served copies of its revised standards 
of conduct upon each person designated on the official service list by 
the Secretary in the proceeding for Docket No. MG98-5-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C., 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to 
intervene or protest should be filed on or before May 25, 2000. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. 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 be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.ud/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12218 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P., Respondent, v Andre Dreyfuss et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 641]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 5, 1999, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The individual defendant’s numerous trips to New York admittedly for the specific purpose of meeting with plaintiff to obtain legal services on behalf of the corporate defendants constituted purposeful activity sufficient to confer jurisdiction over himself as well as the corporate defendants *(see, Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen v Shreve City Apts.,*147 AD2d 327, 332; *Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp.,*71 NY2d 460, 470-471). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
#### CLEVELAND RY CO v BLAUFARD

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co

No. 10198.

Decided November 4, 1929

Messrs. Squire. Sanders 6s Dempsey, Cleveland, for Ry Co.

Mr. Albert Amram, Esq., Cleveland, for Blaufard.

VICKERY, P. J.

It is admitted by counsel for the Railway Company that there was evidence in this case to show, — that is, that there was a conflict of evidence in showing — where the street car was; that it was somewhere around seventy to one hundred and fifty feet away when *these*two automobiles got entangled upon the track; and the claim of the plaintiff below was that had the Railway Company exercised ordinary care after the plaintiff and his car were in a position of danger, even though the Railroad Company was in no wise responsible for putting the automobile in a place of danger, yet it raised the question of the doctrine of last clear chance; that the Railroad Company had plenty of time in which to stop its car and did not stop it; and the damage to the automobile and the driver thereof were a result of the negligence on the part of the Railroad Company.

It was claimed by the Railroad Company that there was nothing in this record to show but what the damages had been done to both the plaintiff and his automobile before the Street Car Company came in contact with the automobile; that is, the collision between the Buick and the Whippet may have caused the damage.

We think an examination of the record will show that both cars were standing upright and their fenders were simply locked together and no damage to speak of was done either to the plaintiff or to his car in the collision.

Then there is another thing: The damage to the Whippet car was upon its right side and there was no damage to the left side of the car and it is the right side of the car that came in contact, with the street railway car. This bears out the contention of the plaintiff. Of course, the only way the Railway Company would be responsible at all would be upon the doctrine of last clear chance, and it is frankly admitted by the plaintiff in error that *694there is evidence, in the record upon that question and that he could not conscientiously claim, that the judgment of the court was contrary to the weight of the evidence; but the whole theory of his lawsuit was planned upon the fact that there was no evidence but what the automobile and the plaintiff in it were injured by the first collision and not by the street car, but we think the. record will disprove this contention.

There does not seem to be much dispute about the amount recovered. At best it is but a small sum and, I believe, the property damage and medical care amounted to $235.00 and the balance of the $500.00 was for personal injuries. We think there was evidence in this record to bear out the judgment of the court and it is not claimed, nor could we hold, that it is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence that we would be warranted in disturbing it.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
Appendix E 

SUMMARY OF SOIL LIMITATIONS ALONG THE 

PIPELINE EXPANSION ROUTE 

E-1

Appendix Table E-1 

Summary of Soil Limitations Along Pipeline Expansion Route 

Parish 

Miles of 

pipeline 

route Type of Soil 

Hydric 

Soil 

Depth 

(cm) 

Compaction 

Potential 

Wind 

Erosion 

Potentiala

Water 

Erosion 

Potential b

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Prime 

Farmland 

Soil 

Calcasieu and Beauregard 

Calcasieu: 2.04 miles Beauregard: 0.51 mile 

Guyton silt loam (occasionally flooded) 

Yes 201 Low 5 0.43 Moderate No 

Calcasieu 0.11 mile 

Guyton and bienville soils (frequently flooded) 

Partially 201 Low 5 0.43 Moderate No 

Calcasieu 0.36 mile Mowata-Vidrine silt loams Partially 201 High 5 0.49 Moderate Yes 
E-2

Appendix Table E-1 

Summary of Soil Limitations Along Pipeline Expansion Route - Continued

Parish 

Miles of 

pipeline 

route 

Type of Soil Hydric Soil Depth (cm) Compaction Potential Wind Erosion Potentiala Water Erosion Potential b Poor Revegetation Potential Prime Farmland Soil 

Calcasieu 3.86 miles Kinder-Messer silt loams Partially 201 Low 5 0.43 Slight Yes Calcasieu 0.06 mile Crowley-Vidrine silt loam No 201 Moderate 5 0.49 Moderate Yes Calcasieu 0.47 mile 

Basile and Guyton silt loams (frequently flooded) 

Yes 201 Moderate 5 0.43 Severe No 

Calcasieu and Beauregard 

Calcasieu: 0.10 mile Beauregard: 1.05 miles 

Acadia silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 

No 201 High 6 0.49 Slight Yes 
E-3

Appendix Table E-1 

Summary of Soil Limitations Along Pipeline Expansion Route - Continued

Parish 

Miles of 

pipeline 

route 

Type of Soil Hydric Soil Depth (cm) Compaction Potential Wind Erosion Potentiala Water Erosion Potential b Poor Revegetation Potential Prime Farmland Soil 

Calcasieu 

Calcasieu: 0.88 mile Beauregard: 0.32 mile 

Brimstone silt loam Yes 50 Moderate 5 0.49 Moderate No 

Calcasieu and Beauregard 

Calcasieu: 1.77 miles Beauregard: 2.45 miles 

Glenmora silt loam (1 to 3 percent slopes) 

No 201 Moderate 5 0.49 Slight Yes 

Calcasieu and Beauregard 

Calcasieu: 

1.14 miles 

Beauregard: 

4.04 miles 

Caddo-Messer silt loam Partially 201 Low 6 0.49 Moderate Yes 
E-4

Appendix Table E-1 

Summary of Soil Limitations Along Pipeline Expansion Route - Continued

Parish 

Miles of 

pipeline 

route 

Type of Soil Hydric Soil Depth (cm) Compaction Potential Wind Erosion Potentiala Water Erosion Potential b Poor Revegetation Potential Prime Farmland Soil 

Calcasieu 0.37 mile 

Gore silt loam (1 to 5 percent slopes) 

No 201 High 5 0.49 Moderate No 

Beauregard 0.36 mile 

Gore very fine sandy loam (1 to 5 percent slopes) 

No 201 High 5 0.49 Moderate No 

Calcasieu 0.15 mile 

Blevins very fine sandy loam (1 to 3 percent slopes 

No 201 Low 5 0.37 Slight Yes 

Beauregard 0.11 mile 

GuytonOuachita silt loams (frequently flooded) 

Yes 201 Low 5 0.43 Severe No 

a Wind Erodibility Group from STATSGO data, range from 1 to 8, with 1 equal to a Wind Erodibiity Index of 310 tons per acre per year, and 8 indicab Indicates the susceptibility of a soil to erosion by water, with a range of 0.02 to 0.64. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more sus

water.
P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 181 ) IV-C-148 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:21:01 AM Sheet 181 of 232P. 2\X

### JA N

### 9 '^o d

Rober t C . Steiapel , Presiden t v ^ ° , vy %^ Genera l Motor s Corporatio n^^$ * (^ 14-13 5 G MBuildin

g ^ . :> ^A 304 4 Wes t Gran dBoulevar d.^'r^ ' Detroit , M I 4820 2 C^ ' *'• ' Dea r Bob * I appreciate dyou r lette r o f Decembe r 13 , 193 8 concernin g ou r recen t meetin g t o discus s th e potentia l contro l o f gasolin e volatilit yan

d vehicl e refuelin g vapors . I believ e th e meetin g wa s productiv e i n identifyin g ou r respectiv e point s o f view . M ystaf f look s forwar dt o bein g provide dwit hGM* s complet e technica l informatio nregardin g GM' s evaluatio no f onboar d vehicl e contro l syste mdesigns . I agre e tha t a mutua l exchang e o f suc hinformatio nand dat a betwee nou r engineer s i s ^n essentia l par t o f th e rulemakin g process . I acknowledg e tha t GMand EP Ad o no t a t thi s poin t agre e o n th e relativ e cos t effectivenes s o f Stag e I I control s versu s onboar dcontrols . A s yo u know , ou r estimate s o f cos t effectivenes s hav e change dsubstantiall yi n th e pas t yea r base d o nne winformatio no n vehicl e runnin g losse s an d othe r evaporativ e emissions . Althoug hmos t o f thes e ne wdat a hav e alreadybee nshare dwit hth e aut o companie s and others , i t wil l b e full ypresente d a s par t o f ou r upcosain g supplementa l notic e o f propose drulemaking . Thi s wil l allo wa comprehensiv e revie w and commen t o n al l aspect s o f ou r analysi s b yth e intereste d parties . Than k yo u agai nfo r takin g th e tim e t o arrang e fo r ou r meeting . A s always , a ystaf f i s availabl e a t anytim e t o mee t wit hGM staf f o n thes e o r othe r Issues .

Sincerely , tea " ; ' Le o M . Thoma s