alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                     ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE, INC.

Pursuant to the provision of section 607.1006, Florida Statues, this Florida
profit corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to its articles of
incorporation:

FIRST: Amendment(s) adopted:

      The Articles of Incorporation are hereby amended to increase the total
number of shares which the corporation shall be authorization to issue from One
Hundred Million (100,000,000) Common shares having a par value of $.001 per
share to One Hundred Twenty Five Million (125,000,000) Common Shares which shall
have a par value of $.001 per share.

      To accomplish the foregoing amendment, Article IV of the original Articles
of Incorporation is hereby amended to read as follows:

                                  "ARTICLE IV"

      The aggregate number of shares of that this corporation shall have
authority to issue shall be One Hundred Twenty Five Million (125,000,000) Common
Shares having a par value of $.001 per share."

SECOND:     If an amendment provides for an exchange, reclassification or
            cancellation of issued shares, provisions for implementing the
            amendment if not contained in the amendment if not contained in the
            amendment itself, are as follows: N/A

THIRD:      The date of the amendments adoption is June 23, 2005.

FOURTH:     Adoption of Amendment(s) (CHECK ONE)

  |X|       The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders. The number
            of votes cast for the amendment(s) was/were sufficient for approval.

  |_|       The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders through
            voting groups. The following statement must be separated provided
            for each voting group entitled to vote separately on the
            amendments(s):

            "The number of votes cast for the amendment(s) was/were sufficient
            for approval by ---------------------."

  |_|       The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the board of directors without
            shareholder action and shareholder action was not required.

  |_|       The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the incorporators without
            shareholder action and shareholder action was not required.


Signed this 20th day of July, 2005



------------------------------------------
Joey Schwartz, Chief Financial Officer

(By the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, President or other
officer if adopted by the shareholders, or By a director if adopted by the
directors, Or By an incorporator if adopted by the incorporators)
#### § 51-2.3 Notice of proposed addition or deletion.

At least 30 days prior to the Committee's consideration of the addition or deletion of a commodity or service to or from the Procurement List, the Committee publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the proposed addition or deletion and providing interested persons an opportunity to submit written data or comments on the proposal. Interested persons submitting comments in bound form should also submit an unbound copy that is capable of being legibly photocopied.

[59 FR 59341, Nov. 16, 1994]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

REGINALD NATHANIEL MALLARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1148

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-01504-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

On October 13, 2023, Reginald Nathaniel Mallard filed 

a notice of appeal at the United States Court of Federal 

Claims. Because Mr. Mallard’s case was still proceeding 

before that court, this court directed the parties to show 

cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. In response, the United States urges dismissal. Mr. Mallard has not responded.

Case: 24-1148 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 02/28/2024
2 MALLARD v. US

An appellant must file a notice of appeal that “designates “the judgment” or “appealable order” from “which the 

appeal is being taken.” Fed R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). This requirement is “jurisdictional in nature, and [its] satisfaction 

is a prerequisite to appellate review.” Smith v. Barry, 502 

U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (citation omitted). Mr. Mallard’s notice of appeal designates an October 11, 2023 order.* However, no order from that date appears on the trial court’s 

docket. At the time Mr. Mallard filed his appeal, the only 

orders listed on the docket were (1) an order accepting Mr. 

Mallard’s non-compliant document and (2) an order granting Mr. Mallard leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. 

Mallard’s notice of appeal does not indicate any intent to 

seek review of those favorable decisions.

The Court of Federal Claims later entered final judgment on November 17, 2023, but the notice of appeal was 

filed before that date and likewise cannot be understood as

intending to seek review of that judgment. As Mr. Mallard 

was specifically informed in the show cause order, if he

wished to appeal from the final judgment in his case, he 

needed to timely file a new notice of appeal or amend his 

existing notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). 

Because he did neither, the final judgment is not properly 

before this court. Since Mr. Mallard’s notice of appeal fails 

to identify any appealable order, we dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

 

* Mr. Mallard’s notice of appeal also identifies eleven 

“Points of Appeal,” but there is no apparent connection between those points and any of the orders issued by the trial 

court. ECF No. 1-2 at 2–3.

Case: 24-1148 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 02/28/2024
MALLARD v. US 3

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs. 

February 28, 2024 

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1148 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 02/28/2024
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1405 Dismissal of pole attachment complaints for lack of jurisdiction. ( a ) The complaint shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in any case where a suitable certificate has been filed by a State pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. Such certificate shall be conclusive proof of lack of jurisdiction of this Commission. A complaint alleging a denial of access shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in any case where the defendant or a State offers proof that the State is regulating such access matters. Such proof should include a citation to state laws and regulations governing access and establishing a procedure for resolving access complaints in a state forum. A complaint against a utility shall also be dismissed if the utility does not use or control poles, ducts, or conduits used or designated, in whole or in part, for wire communication or if the utility does not meet the criteria of § 1.1402(a).
( b ) It will be rebuttably presumed that the state is not regulating pole attachments if the Commission does not receive certification from a state that: ( 1 ) It regulates rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments;
( 2 ) In so regulating such rates, terms and conditions, the state has the authority to consider and does consider the interests of the consumers of the services offered via such attachments, as well as the interests of the consumers of the utility services; and
( 3 ) It has issued and made effective rules and regulations implementing the state's regulatory authority over pole attachments (including a specific methodology for such regulation which has been made publicly available in the state).
( c ) Upon receipt of such certification, the Commission shall give public notice. In addition, the Commission shall compile and publish from time to time, a listing of states which have provided certification.
( d ) Upon receipt of such certification, the Commission shall forward any pending case thereby affected to the state regulatory authority, shall so notify the parties involved and shall give public notice thereof.
( e ) Certification shall be by order of the state regulatory body or by a person having lawful delegated authority under provisions of state law to submit such certification. Said person shall provide in writing a statement that he or she has such authority and shall cite the law, regulation or other instrument conferring such authority.
( f ) Notwithstanding any such certification, jurisdiction will revert to this Commission with respect to any individual matter, unless the state takes final action on a complaint regarding such matter: ( 1 ) Within 180 days after the complaint is filed with the state, or
( 2 ) Within the applicable periods prescribed for such final action in such rules and regulations of the state, if the prescribed period does not extend beyond 360 days after the filing of such complaint.
[83 FR 44839, Sept. 4, 2018]
46252.

#### MIDDLETON v. MIDDLETON.

(376 SE2d 368)

Hunt, Justice.

The trial court ruled that the wife had waived her right of privacy by engaging in lascivious conversations over the family telephone which had been tapped by her husband, and thus, that the tape-recorded conversations would be admissible in their upcoming divorce trial. We granted the wife’s application to appeal.

1. In *Ransom v. Ransom,*253 Ga. 656 (324 SE2d 437) (1985), we held that such tapes, made in violation of OCGA § 16-11-62,1 were inadmissible in a divorce trial, but did not reach in that case the issue of waiver. The trial court here, relying on the fact that the tapes were made while the husband and wife were still cohabiting before the divorce was filed, held that the wife waived her right to privacy by engaging in conversations concerning an extramarital affair and her intention to marry her paramour after the divorce. We disagree.

There is no exception in the statute for illegal2 or immoral conversations even if these conversations can be so characterized. Waiver of privacy cannot be based on the content of the conversation, otherwise all criminal conversations would be admissible. Compare OCGA § 16-11-64. Although the wife was using the family telephone, she was doing so with full expectations of privacy, generally while the husband was not at home.3 “Involvement in a divorce action is not the equivalent of implied consent under [OCGA § 16-11-66] to have one’s telephone line tapped.” *Kendrick v. State,*123 Ga. App. 785, 789 (182 SE2d 525) (1971).

2. Related issues as to whether the tape recorded conversations would be admissible for impeachment or other purposes are not before us in this interlocutory appeal. Compare *Ransom v. Ransom,*supra, 253 Ga. at (3) with the dissent of Justice Gregory in that case at p. 659.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*42Decided March 2, 1989.

*Surrett, Walker, Creson & Colley, Carl J. Surrett, Edward J. Coleman,*for appellant.

*Joseph B. Bergen, Frederick S. Bergen,*for appellee.

1

 This code section provides:

> It shall be unlawful for: (1) *Any person*in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place; ... (4) *Any person*intentionally and secretly to intercept by the use of any device, instrument, or apparatus the contents of a message sent by telephone, telegraph, letter, or by any other means of private communication; . . .

2

 Exceptions for law enforcement officers as prescribed in OCGA § 16-11-64 and for certain telephone services under Ga. Public Service Commission regulations, OCGA § 16-11-65, are not relevant here. Secretly recorded conversations are also admissible if one of the parties to the conversation consents. OCGA § 16-11-66; *State v. Birge,*240 Ga. 501, 502 (241 SE2d 213) (1978).

3

 “ ‘Private place’ means a place where one is entitled reasonably to expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.” OCGA § 16-11-60 (2).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

NET2000 GROUP, INC. AND 

 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 0108-07-2 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 8, 2007 

DOLORES BELMONTE-ARWOOD 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Roger L. Williams; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on 

brief), for appellants. 

 (Dean E. Wanderer; Dean E. Wanderer & Associates, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Net2000 Group, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a 

decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that employer failed to prove that 

Dolores Belmonte-Arwood’s current disability was no longer causally related to her September 

27, 2000 compensable injury by accident. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Belmonte-Arwood v. Net2000 Group, Inc., VWC 

File No. 206-54-65 (Dec. 27, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
# Comments on: 2017-2541: Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S SEPT. 30, 1996 UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH
FLOW STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   11,921,181
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,514,288
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       800,898
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,064,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,300,397
<COMMON>                                     2,213,805
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,629,632
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               3,843,437
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         5,943,750<F1>
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   75,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,438,210
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               15,300,397
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,286,685
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           105,278
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,603,022
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,708,300
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        578,385
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             522,016
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               1,130,401
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       453,598
<NET-INCOME>                                   676,803
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  676,803
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       282,653
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0<F2>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         247,172
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
<FN>
<F1>See Note G to financial statements; includes long term note payable.
<F2>Not reported on an interim basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39865-39866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16378]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1107]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, SMC Pneumatics, Inc. 
(Pneumatic Automation Components); Indianapolis, IN

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, of 
June 18,

[[Page 39866]]

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for `` * * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Indianapolis Airport Authority, grantee of Foreign-
Trade Zone 72, has made application to the Board for authority to 
establish special-purpose subzone at the pneumatic automation 
components manufacturing and warehousing facilities of SMC Pneumatics, 
Inc., located in Indianapolis, Indiana (FTZ Docket 38-99, filed 7/16/
99);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (64 FR 41375, 7/30/99); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the 
application would be in the public interest provided approval is 
subject to restriction;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the pneumatic automation components manufacturing and 
warehousing facilities of SMC Pneumatics, Inc., located in 
Indianapolis, Indiana (Subzone 72P), at the location described in the 
application, and subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28, and further subject to a restriction requiring 
that all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone be placed in 
privileged foreign status.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of June 1999.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Pierre V. Duy,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16378 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# Comments on: 21-2359: MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L. [OPINION], Precedential
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16567]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC00-96-001]


P&L Coal Holdings Corporation, Citizens Power LLC, Citizens Power 
Holdings One, LLC and FC Energy Finance I, Inc.; Notice of Filing

June 26, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 20, 2000, P&L Coal Holdings Corporation, 
Citizens Power LLC, Citizens Power Holdings One, LLC and FC Energy 
Finance I, Inc., tendered for filing a supplement to the Application 
for Order Authorizing Sale of Equity Interests filed with the 
Commission on May 23, 2000 in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before July 7, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. 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 also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16567 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 101.521 Spectrum utilization.

All applicants for DEMS frequencies in the 10.6 GHz band must submit as part of the original application a detailed plan indicating how the bandwidth requested will be utilized. In particular the application must contain detailed descriptions of the modulation method, the channel time sharing method, any error detecting and/or correcting codes, any spatial frequency reuse system and the total data throughput capacity in each of the links in the system. Further, the application must include a separate analysis of the spectral efficiency including both information bits per unit bandwidth and the total bits per unit bandwidth.

[65 FR 59360, Oct. 5, 2000]
#### § 301-10.131 What does United States mean?

For purposes of the use of United States flag air carriers, *United States* means the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States (49 U.S.C. 40102).
#### § 60-2.32 Affirmative action records.

The contractor must make available to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, upon request, records maintained pursuant to § 60-1.12 of this chapter and written or otherwise documented portions of AAPs maintained pursuant to § 60-2.10 for such purposes as may be appropriate to the fulfillment of the agency's responsibilities under Executive Order 11246.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30980

Summary Calendar

JAMES CURTIS SUTTON,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEPUTY CEDRIC D. PAYNE; CLENT RAMBIN,

Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:11-CV-1605

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See Rule 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 20, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30980 Document: 00512149538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2013