alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
3.1.2






CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT


OF


RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, AS AMENDED


OF


NORTH
AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.,


a
Delaware corporation




(pursuant
to Sections 228 and 242 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law)




North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “Company”),
through its duly authorized officers and by authority of its Board of Directors
does hereby certify:




FIRST:
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law, the Board of Directors of the Company duly adopted
resolutions setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as amended, of the Company, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and directing that said amendment be submitted to the stockholders of
the Company for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed
amendment is as follows:




BE IT RESOLVED, that Article
Fourth of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, of the Company
be and hereby is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“FOURTH:
the aggregate number of shares which the Corporation shall have authority to
issue is Twenty-FiveMillion (25,000,000)
shares of Common Stock of a par value of Ten Cents ($0.10) per
share.”




SECOND:
That thereafter, the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Common
Stock of the Company (the single outstanding class of stock) gave their written
consent in favor of the foregoing amendment in accordance with the provisions of
Section 228 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.




THIRD:
That the amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended,
herein certified has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.




FOURTH:
This Certificate of Amendment shall be made effective upon acceptance by the
Delaware Secretary of State.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. has caused this
Certificate of Amendment to be signed by Beth Hood, its duly authorized Vice
President, Corporate Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, this
2nd
day of April, 2009.




/s/Beth
      HoodVice
      President, Corporate Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial
      Officer
#### STATE ex BALL v INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22196.

Decided May 7, 1930

Kinkade, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Marshall, C. J.,. and Robinson, J. concur in judgment.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 132 

Recognizing the Civil Air Patrol for 65 years of service to the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2007 

Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

WARNER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. WEBB, Mr. 

CARDIN, and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MAY 17, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

JUNE 20, 2007 

Considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Civil Air Patrol for 65 years of service 

to the United States. 

Whereas the Civil Air Patrol was established on December 1, 1941, in the Office of Civilian Defense; 

Whereas during World War II the volunteer units of the 

Civil Air Patrol conducted search and rescue missions, provided air transportation for military personnel and cargo, towed targets for the training of 

Army Air Corps gunners, and patrolled the coasts of 

the United States searching for enemy submarines; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

SRES 132 ATS 

Whereas by the end of World War II the Civil Air Patrol 

had flown more than 500,000 hours, sunk 2 German 

U-boats, and saved hundreds of crash victims; 

Whereas on July 1, 1946, the Civil Air Patrol was chartered by the United States as a nonprofit, benevolent 

corporation; 

Whereas on May 26, 1948, the Civil Air Patrol was permanently established as a volunteer auxiliary of the 

United States Air Force; 

Whereas since 1942 the cadet programs of the Civil Air 

Patrol have trained more than 750,000 youth, providing them with leadership and life skills; 

Whereas since 1942 the Civil Air Patrol has flown more 

than 1,000,000 hours of search and rescue missions, 

saving several thousand lives; and 

Whereas since 1951 the aerospace education programs of 

the Civil Air Patrol have provided training and educational materials to more than 300,000 teachers, 

who have educated more than 8,000,000 students 

about aerospace: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the Civil Air Pa2 trol for 65 years of service to the United States. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 99.1


         CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL
                   OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Adirondack Pure Springs
Mountain Water Co., Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Sackler, President of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ DAVID SACKLER
----------------------
David Sackler
President
November 1, 2002
FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/15/2015 10:33:17 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000525 06-DEC-2018 10:20 AM
EXHIBIT 23
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference    in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-22591) pertaining to The Liberty Corporation Retirement    and Savings Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-30151) pertaining to The Performance    Incentive Compensation Program, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84938) pertaining    to The Liberty Corporation Retirement and Savings Plan, as Amended and Restated Effective January    1, 2002, of our reports dated March 2, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements    and schedule of The Liberty Corporation, The Liberty Corporation management’s assessment of    the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal    control over financial reporting of the Liberty Corporation, included in the annual report (Form    10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Greenville, SouthCarolina
132 STAT. 1528 PUBLIC LAW 115–201—JULY 20, 2018 

Public Law 115–201 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To authorize the expansion of an existing hydroelectric project, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT UPPER HIDDEN 

BASIN DIVERSION AUTHORIZATION. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

(2) TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT.—The term 

‘‘Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project’’ means the project identified 

in section 1325 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3212), and which is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project number 2743. 

(3) UPPER HIDDEN BASIN DIVERSION EXPANSION.—The term 

‘‘Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Expansion’’ means the expansion of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project as generally 

described in Exhibit E to the Upper Hidden Basin Grant 

Application dated July 2, 2014, and submitted to the Alaska 

Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII by 

Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The licensee for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project may occupy not more than 20 acres of Federal 

land to construct, operate, and maintain the Upper Hidden Basin 

Diversion Expansion without further authorization of the Secretary 

of the Interior or under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.). 

(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—The Upper Hidden Basin Diversion 

Expansion shall be subject to appropriate terms and conditions 

included in an amendment to a license issued by the Commission 

pursuant to the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), 

including section 4(e) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)), following an 

July 20, 2018 

[H.R. 220] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
PUBLIC LAW 115–201—JULY 20, 2018 132 STAT. 1529 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 220 (S. 214): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–154 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 115–105 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources) accompanying S. 214. 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): June 27, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

environmental review by the Commission under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Approved July 20, 2018. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
#### NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.

No. 85-1150.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1987.

Before WALD, Chief Judge, and ROBINSON, MIKVA, EDWARDS, GINSBURG, BORK, STARR, SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s suggestion for rehearing *en banc*was circulated to the full Court. The taking of a vote thereon was requested. A majority of the judges of the Court in regular active service have voted in favor of the suggestion. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*that this matter will be reheard by the Court sitting *en banc,*and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*that the opinion and judgment of November 4, 1986 be, and the same hereby are, vacated.

A future order will govern further proceedings.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00613-CR

Julius Wilson Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 63579, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Julius Wilson Jr. has filed a pro se notice of appeal from his conviction

for the offense of murder. The district court has certified that this is a plea-bargain case, the

defendant has no right of appeal, and the defendant has waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed

Filed: October 14, 2010

Do Not Publish
§ 4221.7 Reopening of proceedings. ( a ) *Grounds for reopening.* At any time before a final award is rendered, the proceedings may be reopened, on the motion of the arbitrator or at the request of any party, for the purpose of taking further evidence or rehearing or rearguing any matter, if the arbitrator determines that— ( 1 ) The reopening is likely to result in new information that will have a material effect on the outcome of the arbitration;
( 2 ) Good cause exists for the failure of the party that requested reopening to present such information at the hearing; and
( 3 ) The delay caused by the reopening will not be unfairly injurious to any party.
( b ) *Comments on and notice of reopening.* The arbitrator shall allow all affected parties the opportunity to comment on any motion or request to reopen the proceedings. If he or she determines that the proceedings should be reopened, he or she shall give all parties written notice of the reasons for reopening and of the schedule of the reopened proceedings.
Mr. Jeffrey A Klang 

Mr. Chris G. Zurales 

Reference to: 

1-- lo~ ~ ~~ 44040 Laurel Canyon way 

Fremont CA , 94539 

~inal Notice of Proposed Ci~il Penalty 

AGL - 7K 

2014 - GL - 33 - 0029 

I am writing to elect a 

proposed civil penalty. 

hearing to take place? 

Ankit Vyas 

request for a formal heari~g regarding the 

What are the possible venues for this 

RECElVE.:D 

.iUL \ 7 20t4 

HEARING DOCKET
#### In the Matter of the Application of The People of the State of New York, by James A. Beha, as Superintendent of Insurance, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property and Conserve the Assets of the First Russian Insurance Company. First Russian Insurance Company et al., Appellants; Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of First Russian Insurance Company, et al., Respondents.

Argued April 26, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*546
      *Paul C. Whipp*for First Russian Insurance Company et ah, appellants.

*Robert J. Sykes*and *William C. Morris*for Francis J. Donnelly, appellant.

*John M. Downes*and *Alfred L. Green*for Superintend-ant of Insurance, respondent.

*Walter H. Poliak, G. Frank Dougherty*and *Samuel J. Silverman*for G. Frank Dougherty et al., respondents.

*Borris M. Komar*for George Brussendorff et al., respondents.

*Samson Selig*for Andrew Ditmar et al., respondents.

*Edward Ross Aranow*and *Irvine J. Shubert*for Ruth Lippner et al., respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Httbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
                                                November 24, 2004


     VISUAL BIBLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANNOUNCES  DISTRIBUTION
            OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE GOSPEL OF MARK

  Toronto, Canada-Jake Eberts, the recently appointed
  non-executive Chairman of Visual Bible International, Inc.
  ("VBI") announced today the distribution for VBI's current film,
  The Gospel of John, and for VBI's next film, The Gospel of Mark,
  scheduled to commence production in the spring of 2005. The
  Gospel of John will be released in the first quarter of 2005 and
  The Gospel of Mark will see a distribution window in the spring
  of 2006.  Both films will be distributed by Buena Vista Home
  Entertainment.

  The Gospel of John, the best-loved of the four Gospels, is one
  of the most widely-read books of the Bible.  It is a timeless
  story of the mission of early Christianity, and presents a
  uniquely human portrait of Jesus.  It has been adapted to film
  word-for-word from the American Bible Society's Good News
  Translation Bible. The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be
  written.  It is a mysterious, dramatic and ultimately
  apocalyptic portrayal of a miracle-working Jesus, who died
  confronting a Roman Imperial order.

  Eberts said "I am pleased to announce release plans of the
  DVD/VHS for two of VBI's exciting titles.  There couldn't be a
  better distributor than Buena Vista Home Entertainment for The
  Gospel of John and The Gospel of Mark.  No distributor in the
  industry comes to the table with a greater reputation for
  marketing and outreach strategies and that was what I valued the
  most in aligning these films with BVHE."

  As previously announced by VBI, it is the intention of VBI to
  pursue additional equity financing to fund the production and
  marketing costs for The Gospel of Mark.


  Inquiries should be directed to:
  Joanna Leenhouts
  Visual Bible International, Inc.
  Tel: (416) 921-9950 (ext. 232)

  Forward Looking Statements
  This press release may contain certain forward-looking
  statements within the meaning of the Private Securities
  Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual events or results may
  differ materially from those discussed in such forward-looking
  statements.
----

Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-252/04)

(2004/C 201/25)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

----

(1)OJ No L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.

----
06/14/2016

Case Number: DA 15-0693
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.802 Cofferdams. ( a ) If overtopping of the cofferdam by high waters is possible, means shall be provided for controlled flooding of the work area.
( b ) Warning signals for evacuation of employees in case of emergency shall be developed and posted.
( c ) Cofferdam walkways, bridges, or ramps with at least two means of rapid exit shall be provided with guardrails as specified in subpart M of this part.
( d ) Cofferdams located close to navigable shipping channels shall be protected from vessels in transit, where possible.
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0865**
----

Removal from the register of Case C-349/02 (1)

(2004/C 228/73)

By order of 3 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-349/02: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Italy.

----

(1)OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

----
NO. 07-03-0492-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JANUARY 27, 2004

	______________________________

	MICHAEL GLEN SCOTT,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. W-30,473-01-B; HON. SAMUEL KISER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Appellant, Michael Glen Scott (Scott), filed with this court, on November 20, 2003, a notice of appeal wherein he seeks to appeal his conviction based on findings from “DNA testing,” among other things.  Also before us are several other motions he filed.1  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction and deny all motions filed in this cause as moot.     

	Though difficult to understand, Scott asks us to reverse his 1996 conviction for aggravated assault.  He believes he is entitled to reversal because he was denied opportunity to undergo DNA testing at the time of his arrest or shortly thereafter.  To the extent that he attacks his conviction, he must file his notice of appeal within 30 or 90 days of the date the trial court sentenced him in open court.  Tex. R. App. P. 26(a).  Given that he was sentenced in 1996 and his notice of appeal was not filed until November of 2003, his attempt to appeal is untimely.  Thus, we have no jurisdiction over the cause.  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

	To the extent that his notice and various motions can be construed as a request for DNA testing under art. 64.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, we again find that we have no jurisdiction over the matter.  That statute provides a convicted person the opportunity to request forensic DNA testing.  However, the request must be presented to the “convicting court.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2004).  This appellate court was and is not the convicting court.  Scott was tried and convicted in the 181st Judicial District Court for Potter County.  Moreover, the record before us contains no order illustrating that the 181st Judicial District Court denied him any relief under art. 64.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  So, there is no final order implicating that article that vests us with jurisdiction over the matter.

	Finally, to the extent that the various documents Scott has filed may be construed as an application for writ of habeas corpus under art. 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are again without jurisdiction over the matter.  Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals may grant relief under that article.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2004) (stating that after final conviction in any felony case, the writ must be made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals).

	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  Furthermore, all of the motions filed in this cause are denied as moot.

							Brian Quinn

							    Justice

Do not publish.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

March 21, 2018 

a0314 

Order 

 

Clerk 

March 21, 2018 

156088 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 156088 

 COA: 336811 

Wayne CC: 14-004004-FC 

RONALD LEE FOSTER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for the 

appointment of new appellate counsel to represent the defendant as on direct appellate 

review. See Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005). 

The record reflects that defendant’s appellate counsel did not file an application for leave 

to appeal, seek any other relief on the defendant’s behalf, or move to withdraw based on 

the attorney’s determination, after a thorough review of the trial record, that the appeal 

was wholly frivolous. Thus, through no fault of the defendant, he lost the right to seek 

leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on direct review. On remand, new appellate 

counsel, once appointed, may file an application for leave to appeal in the Court of 

Appeals for consideration under the standard for direct appeals, and/or any appropriate 

postconviction motions in the circuit court, within six months of the date of the circuit 

court’s order appointing counsel. 

 Costs are imposed against the attorney, Tracie Gittleman, in the amount of $500, 

to be paid to the Clerk of this Court. 

 We do not retain jurisdiction.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.119 Contracts for services of communications companies.

The Act, in paragraph (4) of section 7, exempts from its provisions “any contract for the furnishing of services by radio, telephone, telegraph, or cable companies, subject to the Communications Act of 1934.” This exemption is applicable to contracts with such companies for communication services regulated under the Communications Act. It does not exempt from the Act any contracts with such companies to furnish any other kinds of services through the use of service employees.