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

                                  Exhibit 3.1


                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                    TO THE
                              RESTATED BYLAWS OF
                          DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION
                        (as adopted on April 24, 2001)

          Section 3.2 of Article III of the Bylaws of the Company shall be
     amended to read as follows:

          "3.2  NUMBER OF DIRECTORS
                -------------------

          Subject to any contrary provisions in the certificate of
     incorporation, the authorized number of directors shall be eight (8).  This
     number may be changed by a duly adopted amendment to the certificate of
     incorporation or by an amendment to this bylaw adopted by the vote or
     written consent of the holders of a majority of the stock issued and
     outstanding and entitled to vote or by resolution of a majority of the
     board of directors.

          No reduction of the authorized number of directors shall have the
     effect of removing any director before that director's term of office
     expires."
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION
                              OF AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                    TO THE
                              RESTATED BYLAWS OF
                          DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION


                     Certificate by Secretary of Adoption
                     ------------------------------------
                             By Board of Directors
                             ---------------------


     The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly elected, qualified,
and acting Secretary of Digital Insight Corporation and that the foregoing
Amendment No. 1 to the Restated Bylaws, comprising of one (1) page, was adopted
by the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Restated Bylaws by
unanimous written consent in lieu of a meeting on April 24, 2001.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and affixed
the corporate seal this 24/th/ day of April, 2001.



                                    /s/ Tae J. Rhee
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Tae J. Rhee, Secretary
From: noelle464@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

noelle levesque

Sequim, WA 98382
Case No. 14,179.

#### TRIPLETT v. HANLEY et al.

[1 Dill. 217.] 1

Circuit Court. E. D. Arkansas.

1871.

Bajtkküptct — Attorney's Fees.

1. The assignee in bankruptcy cannot recover from an attorney the amount of a fee fairly paid to him by an insolvent person for necessary services rendered at the time, there being no fraud in fact or upon the bankrupt act intended or effected.

2. Payments made to an attorney by the bankrupt in contemplation of bankruptcy, for services in opposing the petition of creditors under the 39th section, will be allowed to stand only so far as consistent with a due regard for the interests of the general creditors.

In bankruptcy.

Watkins & Rose, for assignee.

English & Hanley, for defendants.

Before DILLON, Circuit Judge, and CALDWELL, District Judge.

DILLON, Circuit Judge,

delivering orally the opinion of the court, in substance as follows:

This is an action by an assignee in bankruptcy against the defendants, attorneys at law, to recover moneys paid to them by the bankrupts, as fees, or for services, in violation or fraud, as alleged, of the bankrupt act

The defendants rendered services of two kinds:

, 1. While the debtors were embarrassed and insolvent and .known to be so by defendants, but before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy against them, one of them was arrested under a requisition from another state, and employed the defendants to procure his release by a habeas corpus proceeding, which was successful, and he paid him therefor property alleged to be of the value of $700, but there was no proof or claim that the value of the property exceeded the fair value of the services rendered, and the payment was made before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. We hold, that being a payment for services rendered at the time, and not being shown to be fraudulent or excessive, or intended to withdraw property from the operation of the bankrupt act, or to evade or defeat it, the assignee has not established his right to recover the sum thus paid to the defendants.

2. The other services were these: On the petition in bankruptcy being filed against the bankrupts, who were merchants, they consulted the defendants as attorneys, and agreed to pay or did pay them in cash, merchandize, and notes, over $1,500 for advice and services in opposing the petition. The bankrupts were known to the attorneys to be hopelessly insolvent, and to have committed acts of bankruptcy, and they knew or must be taken to have known that it was useless to .oppose the proceeding, or to incur expense in doing so. We hold that the as-signee is entitled to judgment against the defendants for the amount thus paid to them, less the sum of $200. that being shown to be a fair compensation for all necessary advice, and expenditure, and services; the court regards the allowance of that amount, under the circumstances, just and equitable, but disclaims to lay down any rule on the subject, observing that such allowances must be made with great caution, and a due regard for the interests of the general creditors. See Bump, Bankr. (3d Ed.) 195, 368, and cases cited.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET/STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,995
<INVENTORY>                                      5,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,751
<PP&E>                                           9,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,595
<SALES>                                          4,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,179
<CGS>                                            2,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (1)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (938)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (938)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (938)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
From: rjcihak@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:41:27 PM

Bad Conscience is Bad Medicine

I'm a retired physician and am now receiving medical services rather than providing them. Requiring

doctors to do morally unconscionable things could easily harm me. Likewise, organizations forced to

cover "services" they find immoral are demeaned and treated worse than non-citizens in having their

right to liberty repealed. They would be tainted.

Why do you want to force organizations and insurance companies to provide services many employees

or customers don't want? If employees or customers don't want some services, they should not be

forced to pay for them.

Many doctors find that some controversial medical services are inconsistent with their personal scientific

or moral beliefs. These services might include acupuncture, chiropractic, physician-assisted suicide,

alternative medicine, abstinence-only contraception, homeopathy, and abortion. If forced to provide

these services, or to refer to someone who can, these doctors would provide bad services or bad

referrals.

These doctors know little, if anything, about the quality of practitioners providing these services. They

don't know which of these practitioners are competent and which are quacks. For example, would

Planned Parenthood staff know which abstinence-only practitioners were good? I would guess that

some of these Planned Parenthood practitioners consider abstinence-only advice immoral.

Obviously, physicians who abhor killing innocent fetuses or babies will not know which abortifacients or

abortionists are "good" and which are "bad." They would not be able to make a "good" referral for

someone seeking such reprehensible treatment.

As a result, the patient would suffer as a result of forcing their health professionals to do

unconscionable things, if existing conscience laws were repealed. Doctors would be prohibited from

describing their personal moral position with patients. This would restrict my personal options; I

wouldn't be able to easily avoid doctors and hospitals providing physician-assisted suicide, for example.

If a doctor would be forced to make a referral for what he considers quack treatment, the patient would

be the loser.

Therefore, you should rescind the coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures

be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients.

Also, encourage good medical practice by expanding conscience protections for any organizations that

provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections.

Sincerely,

Robert Cihak

Lynnwood, WA 98036
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Danny Elbaz   the Chief Executive Officer,  and Director of The Mobile Star Corp  , certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Registrant.





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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




Date: March 22 2011
The Mobile Star CorpBy:
/s/ Danny ElbazName:  Danny Elbaz

Title:    Chief Executive Officer, and  Director




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: napakit@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:32:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Cejka

Kittery, ME 03904
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT****REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 33-58570) pertaining to the 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan ofIntrusion Inc., the 1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan ofIntrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-60928),the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-57948) pertaining tothe 1995 Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8, No. 33-34484), the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-90408) pertaining to the 1995 Non-employee Director Stock OptionPlan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 33-42927) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ofIntrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-80898)pertaining to the 401(k) Savings Plan of Intrusion Inc., theRegistration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-53813) pertaining to theEssential Communication Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan, and theRegistration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-125816) pertaining to theIntrusion Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 27,2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofIntrusion Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyears ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.

 

 
| **/s/ KBA  Group LLP** | ** ** |
|------------------------|------------|
| Dallas, Texas          |       |
| March 27,  2009   |       |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Green Star Mining Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nan
Weaver, Chief Financial Officer 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
20th day of April, 2009.


/s/ Nan Weaver
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
From: tannerandcompany@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ricky Tanner

New Johnsonville, TN 37134
No. 69603.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/17257, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**MA TERI**  **AL S NOT INCLUDED IN**  **AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0886** Docket Number
**2008 -**  **SW -**  **067 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Agusta Bollet ino Technico No. 139 - 126, dated June 20, 2008 .
**MA Y BE VIEWED A** 

**T:** Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p. m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.