alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.5

                         CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION OF

                     RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND PRIVILEGES OF

                             CONNETICS CORPORATION

                          ____________________________


Connetics Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST: That a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors of
Connetics Corporation, resolutions were duly adopted setting forth the proposed
elimination of its series of Preferred Stock designated as "7% Convertible
Preferred Stock, Series A" as set forth herein:

          RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority granted to and vested in the
          Board of Directors of the Corporation in accordance with the
          provisions of its Certificate of Incorporation, the Board of
          Directors hereby confirms that no shares of 7% Convertible Preferred
          Stock, Series A are currently outstanding and the Corporation has no
          obligation to issue such shares in the future and the Board of
          Directors hereby revokes and rescinds its prior designation of the
          rights, preferences, privileges and limitation of 200 shares of 7%
          Convertible Preferred Stock, Series A out of the Corporation's
          authorized shares of Preferred Stock.

          FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appropriate officers of the Corporation
          be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to prepare and file
          a Certificate of Elimination of Rights, Preferences and Privileges in
          accordance with the foregoing resolution and the provisions of
          Delaware law and to take such actions as they may deem necessary or
          appropriate to carry out the intent of the foregoing resolution.

     SECOND: That the Certificate of Designations with respect to the above 7%
Convertible Preferred Stock, Series A was filed in the office of the Secretary
of State of Delaware on December 4, 1996. None of the authorized shares of the
7% Convertible Preferred Stock, Series A are outstanding and none will be
issued.

     THIRD: That in accordance with the provisions of Section 151 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the Amended and Restated
Certificate

<PAGE>
of Incorporation, as amended, is hereby amended to eliminate all reference to
the 7% Convertible Preferred Stock, Series A.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Connetics Corporation has caused this certificate
to be signed by Kartrina J. Church, its Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary, this 11th day of December, 2001.



                                        /s/ KATRINA J. CHURCH
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Katrina J. Church
                                        Senior Vice President, General Counsel
                                        and Secretary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

19–011 2012

112th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 112–138 

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT 

TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS IS TO CONTINUE FOR ONE 

YEAR BEYOND SEPTEMBER 14, 2012, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 

1622(d) 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2012.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

To the Congress of the United States: 

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within the 90-day period prior to the anniversary 

date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the 

enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect 

to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, 

is to continue in effect for an additional year. 

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 

2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have 

determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2012, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 11, 2012. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO

CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act 

(50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 

7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the 

United States. 

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency 

declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities 

adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2012. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for 

an additional year the national emergency that was declared on 

September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 11, 2012. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
#### § 101.503 Digital Electronic Message Service Nodal Stations.

10.6 GHz DEMS Nodal Stations may be authorized only as a part of an integrated communication system wherein 10.6 GHz DEMS User Stations associated therewith also are licensed to the 10.6 GHz DEMS Nodal Station licensee. Applications for 10.6 GHz DEMS Nodal Station licenses should specify the maximum number of 10.6 GHz DEMS User Stations to be served by that nodal station. Any increase in that number must be applied for pursuant to § 1.913 of this chapter.

[65 FR 59359, Oct. 5, 2000]
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection with the annual report of Prime Air, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report").  I, Blaine Haug,
Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that,  to  the  best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1)     the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

     (2)     the  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  April 30, 2004           /s/ Blaine  Haug
                                 ------------------------
                                 Blaine  Haug
                                 Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                 Chief  Financial  Officer
                                 (Principal  Executive  Officer  and
                                 Principal  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer)


                                       40
<PAGE>
§ 302-3.421 What are the income tax consequences if my agency pays for property management services? When your agency pays for property management services: ( a ) You will be taxed on the amount of property management expenses your agency pays, whether it reimburses you directly for your expenses or pays a relocation services company to manage your residence; and
( b ) Your agency will pay you a relocation income tax allowance under part 302-17 of this chapter for substantially all of the additional Federal, State and local income taxes you incur on the expenses your agency pays.
Note to § 302-3.421 :
You may wish to consult with a tax advisor to determine whether you will incur any additional tax liability, unrelated to your agency's payment of your property management expenses, as a result of maintaining your residence as a rental property.
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 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 Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period September 30,
2005 (the "Report"), Joey Schwartz Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1). To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                             DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2005


                             /S/ JOEY SCHWARTZ
                             --------------------
                             JOEY SCHWARTZ
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                  END OF FILING
No. 11-105.

#### Moats *v.*Republican Party of Nebraska, aka Nebraska Republican Party.

Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.
January 31 , 2012



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BALLARD EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC. AND GO RDY OIL COMPANY

, Appellants

NO. 14

- 11

- 00782

- CV V.

MRA NORTHEAST, L.P. AND FRM/MRA HOLDINGS #1, LTD. , Appellees

____________________

Today the Court heard appellant = s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment
signed by the court below on August 5, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it
meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order th at each party shall pay its costs incurred by reason of this
appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
76 

77 

78 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:22:07-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7702

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCEL BARNES, a/k/a Larry Kevin Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:94-cr-00052-RBS-3)

Submitted: June 9, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcel Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcel Barnes appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence. We affirm. 

Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may reduce the 

term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced 

. . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable 

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S. Sentencing Commission Manual

§ 1B1.10, p.s. (2009). Further, “[a] reduction in the 

defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this 

policy statement and therefore is not authorized under . . . 

§ 3582(c)(2) if . . . an amendment listed in subsection (c) does 

not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable 

guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. 

A defendant may obtain relief under § 3582(c)(2) only 

if an amendment to the sentencing guidelines has lowered the 

defendant’s advisory guidelines range. Barnes was therefore not 

entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2) based on his claims that 

his criminal history points were incorrectly tallied and that 

his sentence violated the rules of Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38 (2007), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and other cases.
3

Barnes maintained that under Amendment 709 of the 

Guidelines, a misdemeanor conviction for assault on a female, 

for which he received one criminal history point, would now not 

be counted, placing him in a lower criminal history category. 

Amendment 709, which addressed in part whether and when certain 

misdemeanor and petty offenses are included in the criminal 

history score, does not apply retroactively. See USSG 

§ 1B1.10(c), p.s. Therefore, Barnes was not entitled to a 

reduction based on Amendment 709. 

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

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

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

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

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

EOH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH GIDEON HANCOCK,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA; BEN CURRY,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 07-17060

D.C. No. CV-02-02413-FCD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAR 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EOH/Research 2 07-17060

California state prisoner Joseph Gideon Hancock appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hancock contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction for assault with a firearm. The record reflects that the state court’s

rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see

also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979).

Hancock next contends that the jury instructions improperly lowered the

prosecution’s burden of proof. The “context of the overall charge” does not

support Hancock’s contention. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1973). 

The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(1).

Hancock’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See

9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.

1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GUILLERMO A. MONTERO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, DANIEL SANTILLI,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2023-2059

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 1:22-cv-20168-RNS, 

Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Having considered the parties’ responses to this court’s 

August 3, 2023, show cause order, we now transfer the case 

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

Guillermo A. Montero brought this suit against the

United States in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida seeking in excess of

$20,000,000 for alleged fraud and violations of the Takings 

Case: 23-2059 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2023
2 MONTERO v. US

Clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as state law. The 

district court dismissed, and Mr. Montero appeals. 

This appeal does not fall within the limited authority 

that Congress granted this court to review decisions of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). In particular, although we have jurisdiction to review decisions that involve 

certain claims against the United States “not exceeding 

$10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); see

§ 1295(a)(2), Mr. Montero seeks more than that amount. 

We therefore lack jurisdiction. See Bragg v. Keohane, 820 

F.2d 402, 403–04 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Where we lack jurisdiction, and if it is in the interest of justice, we shall transfer 

a case to an appropriate court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, 

the appropriate regional circuit for review of Mr. Montero’s 

appeal is the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

October 30, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

 Jarrett B. Perlow

 Clerk of Court

Case: 23-2059 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4303 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4303

     To provide for a change in the exemption from the child labor 
 provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for minors between 
 16 and 18 years of age who engage in the operation of automobiles and 
                                trucks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 1994

Mr. Kreidler (for himself, Mr. Swift, Mr. Dicks, Mrs. Unsoeld, and Ms. 
  Cantwell) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a change in the exemption from the child labor 
 provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for minors between 
 16 and 18 years of age who engage in the operation of automobiles and 
                                trucks.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR MINORS TO OPERATE MOTOR VEHICLES.

    In the administration of the child labor provisions of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Secretary of Labor shall issue a final 
rule no later than one year from enactment of this Act to amend the 
exemption (29 C.F.R. 570.52(b)(1)) from the child labor restrictions of 
such Act for minors between 16 and 18 years of age who operate 
automobiles or trucks not exceeding 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 
to eliminate the requirement that such operation be only occasional and 
incidental to the minor's employment and to add the requirement that 
such operation not be the primary duty of the minor's employment.

                                 <all>
```
437P15

#### Herman V. Tate v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety

1. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion to Safeguard Constitutional Rights (COA14-1274)

1. Dismissed

2. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR

2. Dismissed
No. 11-1.

#### Janto et vir *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 787

To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the

Secretary of Defense to transfer to Federal and State agencies excess

personal property of the Department of Defense suitable for use in

law enforcement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. CONDIT (for himself and Mr. ORTIZ) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Defense to transfer to Federal

and State agencies excess personal property of the Department of Defense suitable for use in law enforcement.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SALE OR DONATION OF EXCESS PERSONAL

4 PROPERTY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

5 FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.

6 Section 2576a(a) of title 10, United States Code, is

7 amended—
2

•HR 787 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘, including

2 small arms and ammunition,’’ and inserting ‘‘de3 scribed in paragraph (3)’’; and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new

5 paragraph:

6 ‘‘(3) The types of excess personal property that may

7 be transferred under this section include—

8 ‘‘(A) small arms, ammunition, protective equip9 ment, vehicles, and other personal property with a

10 direct application in law enforcement activities; and

11 ‘‘(B) personal property, such as construction

12 materials, intended to enhance the training, safety,

13 or working conditions of law enforcement officers.’’.

Æ