alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.7





THIRD AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF


DESIGNATION OF PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS OF


SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK OF


GENSTAR THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION





This THIRD AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS OF SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK TO GENSTAR THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION (Amendment), approved as of the
19th day of December, 2001.





The undersigned, Robert E. Sobol, Chief Executive Officer, and Carin D. Sandvik, Secretary, of
GenStar Therapeutics Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the Company) in accordance with the provisions of Section 103 and 152 (g) thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:





That pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Board of Directors by the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, the
Board of Directors at a meeting duly held on January 10, 2002, and the holders of Series B Preferred Stock by the unanimous written consent of such holders dated January 10, 2002, adopted the following resolutions amending the series of shares of
Preferred Stock designated as Series B Preferred Stock:





RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority vested in the Board of
Directors of the Company (the Board) in accordance with the provisions of its Certificate of Incorporation, the Series B Preferred Stock of the Company is hereby amended to increase the number of authorized shares constituting the Series
B Preferred Stock to Thirteen Thousand (13,000) shares from Ten Thousand (10,000) shares





RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Chairman of
the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President or any Vice President, and the Secretary, the Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Secretary or Assistant Treasurer of the corporation are each authorized to execute, acknowledge, file and
record an amended certificate of designation for the Series B Preferred in accordance with Section 103 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate and do affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is the act and deed of the corporation and that the facts stated herein are true as of this
10 th day of January, 2002.





Robert E. Sobol, M.D., Chief Executive Officer


| | 
| | 




ATTEST:





Carin D. Sandvik, Secretary
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 November 24, 2015

p1116

Order 

Clerk

November 24, 2015

150898

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150898

COA: 323775

Tuscola CC: 09-011071-FC

MICHAEL ANTHONY MOENCH, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 661 -CR Cha r le s M ye r s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -90 4096 , HO NORAB LE WI LF ORD F LOW ERS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant’s motion to withdraw notice of appe al i s gra n t ed. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 42.2(a) . The a

ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: April 24, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 90-8014

_____________________ LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, COUNCIL NO. 4434, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and JESSE OLIVER, ET AL., Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, Etc., ET AL., Defendants, JIM MATTOX, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees-Appellants,
versus JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ, Etc., JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, Etc., and GEORGE S. BAYOUD, JR., Etc., Defendants-Appellants, and TOM RICKHOFF, SUSAN D. REED, JOHN J. SPECIA, JR., SID L. HARLE, SHARON MACRAE and MICHAEL P. PEDAN, Bexar County, Texas State District Judges, Appellants.

- - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

- - - - - (Opinion January 27, 1993, 5 Cir., 1993, F.2 ) (February 11, 1993)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM,

DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHE, WIENER, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.*-2- (90-8014)

BY THE COURT:

A majority of the Judges in active service, on the Court's own motion, having determined to have this case reheard en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed.

*Judge Emilio M. Garza is recused, and, therefore, did not participate in this decision.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of L.G.B ., a child. * From the 326 th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 1 07 62

- CX

.

No. 11

- 2 4

- 00 0 7 7

- C V * September 19 , 20 2 4

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we

affirm the order of the trial court.
222P15

#### Thomas F. Adcox v. Clarkson Brothers Construction Company and UTICA National Insurance Group

1. Defs’ Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-313-2)

1. Allowed 07/02/2015

Dissolved 12/15/2015

2. Defs’ Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Denied

4. Pit’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Dismissed as moot

Beasley, J.,

recused
#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM S. HIGGINBOTHAM.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary Nos. 661, 662)

(385 SE2d 291)

Decided September 8, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Viola S. Drew, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

William S. Higginbotham was accused of violations of Standards 4 and 45 (failure to remit to his clients funds he had collected on their behalf), 61 (failure to deliver promptly to his clients funds collected on their behalf), 63 and 65 (failure to account for trust property held in a fiduciary capacity) and 68 (failure to file a response to a memoranda of complaint filed against him or to cooperate with the investigative panel in its investigation of complaints) of Bar Rule 4-102. A special master was appointed to investigate the allegations.

When Mr. Higginbotham failed to respond within 30 days to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, the State Bar of Georgia filed a Motion for Default and asked the special master to enter findings against Mr. Higginbotham as to every allegation. After waiting 30 days for an answer to the Motion for Default, the special master entered findings of fact and law against Mr. Higginbotham, and the Review Panel of the Disciplinary Board recommended disbarment. Mr. Higginbotham has never filed any response.

We agree that William S. Higginbotham should be disbarred.

*All the Justices concur.*
135P16

#### State v. Robert Antwain Stanback

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Randolph County

1. Dismissed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

2. Dismissed as moot
Exhibit 99.2

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP






                          Independent Auditors' Report



The Board of Directors
Citizens Loan and Savings Company:

We have audited the accompanying  statements of earnings,  shareholders'  equity
and cash flows of Citizens Loan and Savings Company for the year ended September
30, 1995.  These financial  statements are the  responsibility  of the Company's
management.  Our  responsibility  is to express  an  opinion on these  financial
statements based on our audits.

We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally   accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of Citizens Loan
and Savings  Company for the year ended  September 30, 1995, in conformity  with
generally accepted accounting principles.



                                               KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

October 27, 1995
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA-1412, MM Docket No. 99-291; RM-9665] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission, at the request of Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., licensee of Station KTVN(TV), Reno, Nevada, substitutes DTV Channel 13 for DTV Channel 32 at Reno, Nevada.                         *See*64FR 52486, September 29, 1999. DTV Channel 13 can be allotted to Reno at coordinates (39-18-45 N. and 119-53-00 W.) with a power of 12, HAAT of 906 meters and with a DTV service population of 481 thousand. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.                     

# DATES:

Effective August 14, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-291, adopted June 26, 2000, and released June 29, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Television
      - Digital television broadcasting

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622 

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Nevada, is amended by removing DTV Channel 32 and adding DTV Channel 13 at Reno. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 00-16777 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case 65 — Action Between W. F. Owsley, Sr., and Sarah A. Owsley, and by W. F. Owsley, Sk., Against W. F. Owsley, Jr.

#### Owsley *v.*Owsley (two cases.)

APPEAL FROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT.

On Motion to Correct Taxation of Costs.

(For former opinion, see 77 S. W., 394, 397; 25 Ky. Law Rep., 1194, 1186.)

Costs on Appeal — Copy of Record.

1. The unsuccessful party on appeal is to be taxed with ■ a copy of. the record, though the record was obtained from the ■clerk with an agreement that no charge should he made for a copy except in case of success of the party obtaining it, the fees belonging to the State, and the clerk having no right to give them away.

*2.*Costs of a copy of the record will not be taxed on appeal where the record was taken out by the attorney only pending petition for rehearing, and under a misapprehension that his client was entitled to its use without liability for a copy.

*W.*C. MARSHALL, *W.*S. PRYOR and CARROLL & CARROLL, attorneys for appellant.

N. B. HAYS’, attorney foe appellee.

Opinion of the court by

CHIEF JUSTICE HOBSON.

These cases are submitted on the motion of appellant to correct the taxation of costs in so far as a copy of the record in each case is taxed as part of appellee’s cost.

In the first case the record was obtained from the clerk by appellee’s resident attorney, who argued it orally in this court, upon an agreement of the clerk that his client was not to be charged with a copy unless successful. It is the settled rule of the court that, where the clerk allows the attorneys to take the record upon the agreement that a copy *518is to be charged, a copy may be taxed as costs, although not actually made. The fees of the office now belong to the State. If the record is taken from the clerk’s office to be used by the attorney, instead of a copy, his client becomes liable for the cost, and the clerk has no authority to agree ikat he shall not be taxed with the cost of a copy if unsuccessful. The clerk can not give away the money of the State, and his agreement not to charge in any contingency for what the law allows to be charged is not binding on the State. The motion to correct the taxation of costs in the first case is therefore overruled.

In the second case the original attorney declined to take out the record on the understanding that his client was not to be charged with a copy unless successful, and the case was then submitted. A year afterward, and when the case had been decided, and was pending on the petition for rehearing, the resident attorney here took out the record. But in doing this he evidently acted upon the idea that his client was entitled to the use of the record without further liability for a copy. Nothing was then said between him and the clerk. From the entries on the clerk’s books, and all the facts as shown by the affidavits, we conclude that this record was withdrawn under a misapprehension, and that no copy of the transcript should be taxed in this case.

The motion to correct the taxation of costs in the second case is therefore sustained, and, it appearing that the clerk has received the money, he is ordered to refund it, to this extent, to the appellant.
#### § 301-70.501 Does per diem continue when an employee interrupts a travel assignment because of an incapacitating illness or injury?

Yes, when an employee interrupts a travel assignment because of an incapacitating illness or injury and takes leave (annual or sick), per diem will be allowed, not to exceed the maximum rate for the location where the interruption occurs, for a reasonable period, normally not to exceed 14 calendar days (including fractional days) for any one period of absence. You may approve a longer period if justified.

[FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57967, Sept. 13, 2002]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4340 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4340

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
percentage of completion method of accounting shall not be required to 
be used with respect to contracts for the manufacture of property if no 
     payments are required to be made before the completion of the 
                     manufacture of such property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 1994

  Mr. Ehlers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
percentage of completion method of accounting shall not be required to 
be used with respect to contracts for the manufacture of property if no 
     payments are required to be made before the completion of the 
                     manufacture of such property.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION FROM PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD FOR CERTAIN 
              MANUFACTURING CONTRACTS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 460(f) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for manufacturing 
contracts) is amended by striking ``unless'' and all that follows and 
inserting ``unless--
                    ``(A) such contract involves the manufacture of--
                            ``(i) any unique item of a type which is 
                        not normally included in the finished goods 
                        inventory of the taxpayer, or
                            ``(ii) any item which normally requires 
                        more than 12 calendar months to complete 
                        (without regard to the period of the contract), 
                        and
                    ``(B) any payment for the manufacture of such item 
                is required to be made before the manufacture of such 
                item is completed.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the amendments made by section 804 of the 
Tax Reform Act of 1986.

                                 <all>
```
APP 2041 . . 133°10°
55° Luu

i CAUTION |

Falling rock and debris make near
shore transit hazardous in the vicinity

TRACY ARM \ ( Ronanis

Scale 1:20,000 at 57°50’
SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS
(FATHOMS AND FEET TO ELEVEN FATHOMS)
AT MEAN LOWER LOW WATER

JOINS MAIN PANEL

94

Pare

SCALE 1:40,000

Nautical Miles

3

Yards

South Sawyer Glacier

CAUTION
Falling rock and debris make near
shore transit hazardous in the vicinity
of South Sawyer Glacier.
No. 10-11214.

#### Griffin *v.*Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5071.

#### Spencer *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 3.6


                             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 Twenty Five Million (125,000,000) Common shares having a par value of
$.001 per share to Two Hundred Fifty Million (250,000,000) 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 Two Hundred Fifty Million (250,000,000) 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 October 13, 2010.

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 19th day of October, 2010


__________________________________________
Praveen Nair, Chief Accounting 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)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sam
Bhatt, Vice President of Finance of the Company, 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 result of operations of the
     Company.

                                                       /s/ Sam Bhatt
                                                       Vice President of Finance
                                                       November 15, 2004