alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Douglas 4•S

Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the parties' arguments and the documents before this court, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. In particular, NRS 432B.330(2)(c) provides that a child may be in need of protection if the person responsible for the child's welfare caused the abuse or neglect of another child who resided with that person. Here, the district court concluded that petitioners failed to establish that B.L. was a child in need of protection from real parties in interest, and petitioners have not met their burden of showing that the district court's decision constituted an arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion or was in excess of the court's jurisdiction. Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J•

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Special Public Defender Stephanie M. Keels Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 0
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                     OF THE

                    RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                               BAY NETWORKS, INC.
                            (a Delaware corporation)

        Bay Networks, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does
hereby certify that:

        1.      The amendment to the Corporation's Restated Certificate of
Incorporation set forth below was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions
of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

        2.      The first sentence of Article Fourth of the Restated Certificate
of Incorporation of the Corporation is amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

        "The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
        Corporation shall have authority to issue is (i) 400,000,000 shares of
        Common Stock, $.01 par value per share ("Common Stock"), and (ii)
        1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, $.001 par value per share
        ("Preferred Stock")."

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bay Networks, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officer this 24th day of April, 1998.

                                       BAY NETWORKS, INC.


                                       By: /s/ John J. Poggi, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John J. Poggi, Jr.
                                           Vice President, General Counsel and
                                           Secretary
♦ ♦ 

• 

;e_·. • 

. 

. 

. 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

OF THE 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551

MICHAEL BRADFIELD 

GENERAL COUNCEL 

Baldwin B. Tuttle, Esq. 

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &Mccloy 

International Square Building 

1825 Eye Street, N.w. 

Washington, o.c. 20006 

Dear Mr. Tuttle: 

This is in response to your letter of December 19, 

1988, in which you request an interpretation of section 205 of 

the recently amended Depository Institution Management 

Interlocks Act (12 u.s.c. § 3201 etseq.) ("Interlocks Act"). 

Specifically, it is your view that the proposed service of Mr. 

Robert H. Dedman as a director with both NCNB Texas 

Bancorporation ("NCNB Texas") and Franklin Federal Bancorp 

( "Franklin Federal"), would not be prevented by the Interlocks 

Act due to the Act' s exception for failed or failing 

institutions which are acquired. 

As you are aware, the Interlocks Act excepts from its 

prohibitions foi five years interlocking service by a 

management official of a depository institution or a depository 

holding company which is closed or is in danger of closing and 

is acquired by another depository institution or depository 

holding company. Management Interlocks Revision Act of 1988, 

Pub. L. No. 100-650 § 4 (to be codified at 12 u.s.c. § 3204(7}}. 

In order to address the failing bank situation at 

First RepublicBank Corporation ("First Republic"), a bridge 

bank which later became NCNB Texas National Bank, was created 

by the Federal Depositt Insurance Corporation to acquire the 

assets and assume the deposits and· liabilities of all of First 

Republic's subsidiary Texas banks. NCNB Texas National Bank 

was acquired by NCNB Texas, a subsiaiary of NCNB Corporation, 

on November 22, 1988. 

In my view, the failed or failing institution 

exception in the Interlocks Act covers situations such as that 

described above. Accordingly, based on the facts presented by 
- 2 -

you, I concur in your view that Mr. Dedman's interlocking 

service with NCNB Texas and Franklin Federal would be 

permissible under the Interlocks Act until November 22 , 1993. 

Sincerely, 

(signed)

Michael Bradfield
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Milton G. Silva-Craig., the Chief Executive Officer of Technology Solutions Company, certifythat:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Technology Solutions Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2007 By:  /s/ MILTON G. SILVA-CRAIG    Milton G. Silva-Craig    Chief Executive Officer
May 18, 1964.

No. 68576.

Appeal 5162.

#### United States *v.*Amity Fabrics, Inc.

C.D. 2416. Appeal dismissed April 1, 1964.
AAM-11-344-E 

June 24, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10298 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0616 

Mr. William Leppert 

Chief Pilot/DER 

Long Bay Aviation, LLC 

538 Wild Horse Ct. 

Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 

Dear Mr. Leppert: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated June 6, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Long Bay Aviation, LLC (Long Bay) for an exemption to allow Long Bay, which is 

operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one drug testing program. The FAA finds that you require 

relief from part 120 of 14 CFR. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Long Bay. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Long Bay Aviation, LLC an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow Long Bay, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Long Bay are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Long Bay part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Flight Surgeon 

Enclosure
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellant,

v.

MARTIN E. O’BOYLE , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2662

[ July 21, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Ashley C. Zuckerman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- MM

012872

- AXXX

- SB

.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. Solages

Jones, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J., W ARNER and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 377 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 377

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 
   the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. 
                                 Valeo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2000

  Ms. Kaptur submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 
   the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. 
                                 Valeo.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 
the First Amendment to the Constitution in its decision in the 1976 
case of Buckley v. Valeo because--
            (1) the decision failed to recognize that the unlimited 
        spending of large amounts of money on elections has a corrosive 
        effect on the electoral process not simply because of direct 
        transactions between those who give large amounts of money and 
        candidates and elected officials but because the presence of 
        unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process on a more 
        fundamental level; and
            (2) the decision failed to recognize other legitimate state 
        interests which justify limiting money in campaigns, including 
        the need to preserve the integrity of our republican form of 
        government, restore public confidence in government, and ensure 
        all citizens a more equal opportunity to participate in the 
        political process.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 15 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 15

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
clarify the intent of the Constitution to neither prohibit nor require 
                         public school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 1997

  Mr. Byrd introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
clarify the intent of the Constitution to neither prohibit nor require 
                         public school prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and 
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures 
of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the 
date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments thereto, 
shall be construed to prohibit or require voluntary prayer in public 
schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary prayer at public school 
extracurricular activities.''.
                                 <all>
```
like to start putting together a schedule regarding the PSD process and what we can plan for.., right now

we (SPI) have three concurrent processes: CEQA (EIR), PSD, and the local Building Permits and ATC’s

with the County. While the others are somewhat known and scheduled for, the PSD has some unknowns.As mentioned in our meeting, the BACT assessment is a citicaI component of the project, including a

potential domino-effect regarding site layout and facility components if they need to be changed. Would

you please give me an idea on when we can expect a draft review of the PSD application and BACT

analysis can be done (within a few weeks?), and start to plan on a time to discuss the specific PSD permit

itself.

If possible and practicable — I’d like to shoot for the following timeline. Let me know your thoughts. The

assumption would be that we can be proactive on the tailoring rule, Boiler MACT, and 1 hour S02, and

incorporate those into the permit with the anticipation to be issued prior to December 2010.

PSD Application deemed complete (late June)PSD Technical Review (ongoing through July 15)EPA/Environ/SPI Conf. Call Re: PSD Review/BACT (July 15)PSD Permit— Drafting of Permit

Public Comment Period — start Sept 1End Public Comment, scheduling conf call or mtg with SR and Shasta County re: comments — Oct 15

(if no substantial comments) — issue PSD by mid-November.On the CEQA side, we’re expecting the public comment period on the EIR to being in a few weeks and an

end of July public comment end-date.

David C. Brown, PE

Environmental Affairs & Compliance Manager

Sierra Pacific Industries

19794 Riverside Avenue

Redding, CA 96049-6028(530) 378-8179(530) 378-8139 fax(530) 391-7650 cellCONFIDENTIALiTY STATEMENT: This communication and any accompanying or attached document(s) are confidential and

privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you receive this communication in error, you are advised that

any use, disc:osure, copying, dstributicn or taking any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. If you

received this message in error please immediately telephone Sierra Pacific Industries at (530) 378-8179, and delete this message

without coyvg it, Thank you
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 281

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 4, 2000

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the East Front of the Capitol Grounds

for performances sponsored by the John F. Kennedy

Center for the Performing Arts.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 281 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING USE OF EAST FRONT OF CAP2 ITOL GROUNDS FOR PERFORMANCES SPON3 SORED BY KENNEDY CENTER.

4 In carrying out its duties under section 4 of the John

5 F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76j), the John F. Ken6 nedy Center for the Performing Arts, in cooperation with

7 the National Park Service (in this resolution jointly re8 ferred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’), may sponsor public perform9 ances on the East Front of the Capitol Grounds at such

10 dates and times as the Speaker of the House of Represent11 atives and Committee on Rules and Administration of the

12 Senate may approve jointly.

13 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any performance authorized

15 under section 1 shall be free of admission charge to the

16 public and arranged not to interfere with the needs of

17 Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Archi18 tect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.

19 (b) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall

20 assume full responsibility for all liabilities incident to all

21 activities associated with the performance.

22 SEC. 3. PREPARATIONS.

23 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—In consultation

24 with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

25 Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, the

26 Architect of the Capitol shall provide upon the Capitol
3

HCON 281 RFS

1 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and

2 other related structures and equipment as may be required

3 for a performance authorized under section 1.

4 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

5 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board may make such

6 additional arrangements as may be required to carry out

7 the performance.

8 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

9 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce10 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act

11 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con12 cerning sales, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol

13 Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the

14 Capitol Grounds, with respect to a performance authorized

15 by section 1.

16 SEC. 5. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

17 A performance may not be conducted under this reso18 lution after September 30, 2000.

Passed the House of Representatives April 3, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 99.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER






                            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 Pharmaceutical  Resources,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Dennis
J. O'Connor,  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 my knowledge:

    (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/ DENNIS J. O'CONNOR
----------------------
Dennis J. O'Connor
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003