alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE

    Secretary of State

    202 North Carson Street

    Carson City, Nevada 89701-4201

    (775) 684-5708

    Website: www.nvsos.gov
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Certificate
    of Amendment
	(PURSUANT
TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)
	 
	 	 


















	USE
    BLACK INK ONLY - DO NOT HIGHLIGHT	ABOVE
    SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY


 


Certificate
of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation


For
Nevada Profit Corporations


(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of
Stock)


 


1.
Name of corporation:


 


The
MaryJane Group, Inc.


 


2.
The articles have been amended as follows: (provide article numbers, if available)


 


The
authorized capital of the corporation has been amended as follows:


 


“The
corporation’s authorized capital stock consists of 202,000,000 shares that includes 200,000,000 shares of common stock,
$0.001 par value per share, and 2,000,000 shares of preferred stock, $0.001 par value per share.”


 


3.
The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting
power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may
be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation* have voted in favor of the amendment is:     n/a


 


4.
Effective date and time of filing: (optional)         Date:  April
8, 2015     Time:


(must
not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)      


 


5.
Signature: (required)


 


	By:	/s/ Joel C. Schneider	 
	 	Joel C. Schneider	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 






 


*If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative or other right given to any class or series of
outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required,
of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment
regardless to limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.


 


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


 


Nevada
Secretary of State Amend Profit-After


	This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.	Revised: 1-5-15
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 4.150 Employee coverage, generally.

The Act, in section 2(b), makes it clear that its provisions apply generally to all service employees engaged in performing work on a covered contract entered into by the contractor with the Federal Government, regardless of whether they are the contractor's employees or those of any subcontractor under such contract. All service employees who, on or after the date of award, are engaged in working on or in connection with the contract, either in performing the specific services called for by its terms or in performing other duties necessary to the performance of the contract, are thus subject to the Act unless a specific exemption (see §§ 4.115 *et seq.*) is applicable. All such employees must be paid wages at a rate not less than the minimum wage specified under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)), as amended. Payment of a higher minimum monetary wage and the furnishing of fringe benefits may be required under the contract, pursuant to the provisions of sections 2 (a)(1), (2), and 4(c) of the Act.
11AConsentN-4SEC325Ex2-GWNYOneSourceChoice-Corporate




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-194044 of the Variable Annuity-1 Series Account of Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company of New York on Form N-4 of our report dated March 31, 2015 on the financial statements Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company of New York (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an emphasis-of-matter paragraph referring to the financial statements which have been prepared from separate records maintained by the Company and may not necessarily be indicative of conditions that would have existed or the results of operations if the Company had been operated as an unaffiliated company) appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is part of the Registration Statement.
We also consent to the references to us as experts under the heading “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and Independent Auditors” in the Statement of Additional Information. 


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Denver, Colorado 
April 10, 2015
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


April 9, 2015


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Defensive 50 Equities Trust,
Series 3


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Defensive 50 Equities Trust, Series 3 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on April 8, 2015, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-202718) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
# Úřední věstník C 171/1. č

| | ISSN 1725-5163 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 171 |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 471. července 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5163

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 171

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 471. července 2004

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Informace |
| | Komise |
| 2004/C 171/1 | Směnné kurzy vůči euro | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

I   Informace

Komise

2004/C 171/1

Směnné kurzy vůči euro

1

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

I Informace

Komise

| 1.7.2004 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2004

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

C 171/1

---

Směnné kurzy vůči euro (1)

30. června 2004

(2004/C 171/01)

1 euro=

| | měna | směnný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | americký dolar | 1,2155 |
| JPY | japonský jen | 132,40 |
| DKK | dánská koruna | 7,4326 |
| GBP | britská libra | 0,67075 |
| SEK | švédská koruna | 9,1451 |
| CHF | švýcarský frank | 1,5242 |
| ISK | islandská koruna | 88,33 |
| NOK | norská koruna | 8,4365 |
| BGN | bulharský lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | kyperská libra | 0,58150 |
| CZK | česká koruna | 31,755 |
| EEK | estonská koruna | 15,6466 |
| HUF | maďarský forint | 251,60 |
| LTL | litevský litas | 3,4529 |
| LVL | lotyšský latas | 0,6570 |
| MTL | maltská lira | 0,4263 |
| PLN | polský zlotý | 4,5236 |
| ROL | rumunský lei | 40 626 |
| SIT | slovinský tolar | 239,9900 |
| SKK | slovenská koruna | 39,875 |
| TRL | turecká lira | 1 805 300 |
| AUD | australský dolar | 1,7554 |
| CAD | kanadský dolar | 1,6343 |
| HKD | hongkongský dolar | 9,4803 |
| NZD | novozélandský dolar | 1,9210 |
| SGD | singapurský dolar | 2,0901 |
| KRW | jihokorejský won | 1 404,45 |
| ZAR | jihoamerický rand | 7,6177 |

měna

směnný kurz

USD

americký dolar

1,2155

JPY

japonský jen

132,40

DKK

dánská koruna

7,4326

GBP

britská libra

0,67075

SEK

švédská koruna

9,1451

CHF

švýcarský frank

1,5242

ISK

islandská koruna

88,33

NOK

norská koruna

8,4365

BGN

bulharský lev

1,9559

CYP

kyperská libra

0,58150

CZK

česká koruna

31,755

EEK

estonská koruna

15,6466

HUF

maďarský forint

251,60

LTL

litevský litas

3,4529

LVL

lotyšský latas

0,6570

MTL

maltská lira

0,4263

PLN

polský zlotý

4,5236

ROL

rumunský lei

40 626

SIT

slovinský tolar

239,9900

SKK

slovenská koruna

39,875

TRL

turecká lira

1 805 300

AUD

australský dolar

1,7554

CAD

kanadský dolar

1,6343

HKD

hongkongský dolar

9,4803

NZD

novozélandský dolar

1,9210

SGD

singapurský dolar

2,0901

KRW

jihokorejský won

1 404,45

ZAR

jihoamerický rand

7,6177

---

(1)

Zdroj: referenční směnné kurzy jsou publikovány ECB.

---
§ 4262.13 Restrictions on special financial assistance. ( a ) *In general.* A plan that receives special financial assistance must be administered in accordance with the restrictions in this section and in § 4262.14.
( b ) *Restrictions and use of SFA.* Special financial assistance received, and any earnings thereon— ( 1 ) May be used by the plan only to make benefit payments and pay administrative expenses;
( 2 ) Must be segregated from other plan assets as described in § 4262.14(a);
( 3 ) May be used before other plan assets are used to make benefit payments and pay administrative expenses; and
( 4 ) Must be invested in investment grade bonds or other investments as permitted by PBGC in § 4262.14.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  PVD P LAST M OULD I NDUSTRIES , L IMITED , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. P OLYMERG ROUP , I NCORPORATED ; B ONLAM S.A. DEC.V.,

Defendants-Appellees, No. 01-1414



#  and E RNST & Y OUNG , LLP; W. S HAWN S MITH ; T ONY C ALLANDER ; S.R. B ATLIBOI & C OMPANY ; BHF B ANK , a/k/a Berliner Handels; UND F RANKFURTERB ANK , Defendants. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-2929-2-23) Argued: January 24, 2002 Decided: February 15, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSEL
ARGUED: Michael S. Seekings, MULLEN, WYLIE & SEEKINGS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Michael Collins, BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE & MCGEE, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: PVD Plast Mould Industries, Ltd. commenced this action against Polymer Group, Inc., Bonlam S.A. de C.V., and others for breach ofcontract, unfair competition, related torts, and violations of the antitrust laws, all relating to a failed joint venture between plaintiff and some of the defendants. Over an almost two-year period during which discovery was taking place, PVD’s failure to comply with discovery requests of Polymer Group and Bonlam S.A. and with three separate discovery orders wasnothing short of contumacious. This long process involving alternative excuses, changed positions, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and outright refusals, which are well documented by both the magistrate judge and the district judge, prompted the district court to dismiss the action and award Polymer Group and Bonlam S.A. attorneys fees of $42,722.18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. PVD appealed the district court’s decision, arguing principally that the sanctions were too severe and that lesser sanctions would have been adequate. The district court found that PVD’s bad faith, even after receiving clear warnings about its conduct, caused the defendants prejudice. The court expressly explored less severe sanctions but concluded that 2 PVD P LAST M OULD I NDUS . v. P OLYMERG ROUPthe sanctions already imposed by the magistrate judge had been "ineffective." As the district court concluded: These lesser sanctions did nothing to motivate compliance by PVD. Even clear warnings of dismissal and the motion for sanctions have not motivated PVD to bring itself into compliance. Therefore, this court is convinced that anylesser sanction would fail to cure PVD’s determined obdurateness.We have carefully reviewed the record and considered PVD’s arguments. For the reasons ably and fully given by the district court in ordering dismissal and attorneys fees, see PVD Plast Mould Industries, Ltd. v. Polymer Group, Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 2:98-2929-23 (D.S.C. February 1, 2001), we affirm.
AFFIRMED 3 PVD P LAST M OULD I NDUS . v. P OLYMERG ROUP
**Exhibit      32.2**

**STATEMENT      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE **

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 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                as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements                included in such Report. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Kathleen                M. Jepson                             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| August                14, 2008                                   |

----
#### § 93.101 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes a special air traffic rule for civil helicopters operating VFR along the North Shore, Long Island, New York, between July 29, 2022, and July 29, 2026.

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1029; Amdt. No. 93-103; 87 FR 45642, July 31, 2022]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

By Docket No. FAA-2022-1029; Amdt. No. 93-103; 87 FR 45642, July 31, 2022, § 93.101 was revised, effective July 29, 2022 through July 29, 2026.
§ 4041.8 Post-termination amendments. ( a ) *Plan benefits.* A participant's or beneficiary's plan benefits are determined under the plan's provisions in effect on the plan's termination date. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an amendment that is adopted after the plan's termination date is taken into account with respect to a participant's or beneficiary's plan benefits to the extent the amendment— ( 1 ) Does not decrease the value of the participant's or beneficiary's plan benefits under the plan's provisions in effect on the termination date; and
( 2 ) Does not eliminate or restrict any form of benefit available to the participant or beneficiary on the plan's termination date.
( b ) *Residual assets.* In a plan in which participants or beneficiaries will receive some or all of the plan's residual assets based on an allocation formula, the amount of the plan's residual assets and each participant's or beneficiary's share thereof is determined under the plan's provisions in effect on the plan's termination date. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an amendment adopted after the plan's termination date is taken into account with respect to a participant's or beneficiary's allocation of residual assets to the extent the amendment does not decrease the value of the participant's or beneficiary's allocation of residual assets under the plan's provisions in effect on the termination date.
( c ) *Permitted decreases.* For purposes of this section, an amendment shall not be treated as decreasing the value of a participant's or beneficiary's plan benefits or allocation of residual assets to the extent— ( 1 ) The decrease is necessary to meet a qualification requirement under section 401 of the Code;
( 2 ) The participant's or beneficiary's allocation of residual assets is paid in the form of an increase in the participant's or beneficiary's plan benefits; or
( 3 ) The decrease is offset by assets that would otherwise revert to the contributing sponsor or by additional contributions.
( d ) *Distress terminations.* In the case of a distress termination, a participant's or beneficiary's benefit liabilities are determined as of the termination date in the same manner as plan benefits under this section.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of D.O.R., a Juvenile

No. 06

- 20

- 00036

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 14

- J

- 009 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justi ce Stevens and Chief Justice Morriss and Chief Justice Marion* participating

. * Chief Justice, Retired , Sitting by Assignment

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the trial court ’ s transfer order

. We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANU A RY 1 3 , 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey

, Clerk
§ 4233.10 Initial review. ( a ) *Determination on completed application.* PBGC will make a determination on an application not later than 270 days after the date such application is deemed completed.
( b ) *Incomplete application.* If the application is incomplete, PBGC will issue a written notice to the plan sponsor describing the information missing from the application no later than 14 calendar days after the submission of such application.
( c ) *Complete application.* Upon making a determination that an application is complete (*i.e.,* the application includes all the information specified in §§ 4233.5 through 4233.9), PBGC will issue a written notice to the plan sponsor no later than 14 calendar days after the submission of such application. The date of the written notice will mark the beginning of PBGC's 270-day review period under section 4233(a)(1) of ERISA, and the plan sponsor's 30-day notice period under 4233(a)(2) of ERISA.
( d ) *Special rule for coordinated applications for partition and benefit suspension.* For a plan requiring both partition and benefit suspensions to remain solvent, PBGC's initial determination that a partition application is complete will be conditioned on the plan sponsor's filing of an application for benefit suspensions with Treasury within 30 days after receiving written notice from PBGC under paragraph (c) of this section. Such a plan is permitted, but not required, to issue a combined notice under § 4233.13(b).
( e ) *Informal consultation.* Nothing in this subsection precludes a plan sponsor from contacting PBGC on an informal basis to discuss a potential partition application.
[80 FR 35229, June 19, 2015, as amended at 80 FR 79694, Dec. 23, 2015]
#### § 458.29 Election of officers.

Every labor organization subject to the CSRA or FSA shall conduct periodic elections of officers in a fair and democratic manner. All elections of officers shall be governed by the standards prescribed in sections 401 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the LMRDA to the extent that such standards are relevant to elections held pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7120 or 22 U.S.C. 4117 .

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980; 45 FR 28322, Apr. 29, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 31311, 31312, Aug. 1, 1985]
Support Documents for 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

P-02-1040 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 17
Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for 

PMN P-02-1040 

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for 

PMN P-02-1040 

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for 

PMN P-02-1040 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 17
A-001 

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-02-1040 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 17
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 17
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 17
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 17
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 17
A-002 

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-02-1040 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 17
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 17
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 17
A-003 

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-02-1040 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 17
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 17
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

966 

TP 11-00735 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA A. CUMMINGS, 

PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, 

RESPONDENT. 

 

BURGIO, KITA & CURVIN, BUFFALO (HILARY C. BANKER OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Timothy J.

Drury, J.], entered March 30, 2011) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination, among other things, found that

petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: We conclude in this CPLR article 78 proceeding that,

contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination to suspend her

driver’s license is supported by substantial evidence (see generally

300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176,

181-182; Matter of Guarino v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 80

AD3d 697). The evidence presented at the administrative hearing

established that petitioner was making a left-hand turn in her vehicle

at a T-intersection when she struck and killed a pedestrian. 

Petitioner contends that the evidence did not establish, however, that

the pedestrian was in the crosswalk at the time of the accident and

thus that her alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 is

not supported by substantial evidence. The record belies that

contention. According to both the accident report completed by a

police officer and the testimony of the officer at the hearing,

petitioner told the officer that she struck a pedestrian who was

crossing the street “in [the] crosswalk from west to east.” 

Petitioner’s further contention that the Administrative Law Judge

should have adduced additional evidence before rendering her decision

is raised for the first time on appeal, and “ ‘[t]he scope of [this]

CPLR article 78 proceeding, following an administrative hearing, is
-2- 966 

TP 11-00735 

limited to review of the issues raised and addressed in that 

hearing’ ” (Matter of Vicari v Wing, 244 AD2d 974, 976). 

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### BLAKEMAN v SCHLICTER

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Pike County

Decided Dec 20, 1928

Earl D Parker, Morgantown, for Blake-man.

C M Caldwell ,and Levi B Moore, Waverly, for Schlicter.

Middleton and, Mauck. JJ, concur.
(77 South. 1003)

#### DOZIER v. STATE.

(1 Div. 277.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 15, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; N. R. Leigh, Judge.

William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.