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

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.5

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                   RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                            VITRIA TECHNOLOGY, INC.

          JoMei Chang, Ph.D. hereby certifies as follows:

     One:   The original name of this corporation is Vitria Acquisition
Corporation and the date of filing of the original Certificate of Incorporation
of this corporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware is June
21, 1999.

     Two:   That she is the duly elected and acting President and Chief
Executive Officer of Vitria Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

     Three: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance with
the provisions of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware, adopted resolutions amending its Restated Certificate of
Incorporation as follows:

         Article IV, Paragraph A shall be amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows:

  "A     This corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to be
  designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock."  The total
  number of shares which the corporation is authorized to issue is six hundred
  five million (605,000,000) shares.  Six hundred million (600,000,000) shares
  shall be Common Stock, each having a par value of one-tenth of one cent
  ($.001).  Five million (5,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock, each
  having a par value of one-tenth of one cent ($.001)."

     Four:  Thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors, this
Certificate of Amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation
for their approval, and was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     In Witness Whereof, Vitria Technology, Inc. has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President and Chief Executive Officer this 25/th/
day of July, 2000.



                                          /s/ JoMei Chang, Ph.D.
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    JoMei Chang, Ph.D.
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 50321.

#### Protests 57862-K, etc., of Edward Boote et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Seaspan Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statement (No. 333-151329) on Form F-3D and registration statements (No. 333-142195 and 333-137051) on Form F-3 of Seaspan Corporation of our reports (1) dated February 26, 2009, except for note 15(c), which is as ofMarch 27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Seaspan Corporation as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, cash flows, and comprehensive incomefor each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and (2) dated February 26, 2009, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appearin the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 20-F of Seaspan Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Vancouver, Canada 

March 30, 2009
No. 68646.

protest 63/21081 (New York).

#### Van Oppen & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**Certification ofChief Executive Officer**

I, Ronald H.P.Brus, certify that:

1.                   I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of Crucell N.V.;

2.                 Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.                 The company’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

a)               Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

b)              Evaluated the effectiveness of thecompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)               Disclosed in this report any changes inthe company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.                 The company’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

b)              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date: June 29, 2006 |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     | By:    | /s/ RONALD H.P. BRUS |   |
|                     | Name:  | Ronald H.P. Brus |
|                     | Title: | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

** **

**PLS CPA, A Professional Corp.**

**t****4725 MERCURY STREET SUITE 210 tSAN DIEGO t CALIFORNIA92111 t**

**t****TELEPHONE (858)722-5953 tFAX (858) 761-0341 t FAX(858) 764-5480**

**t****E-MAIL changgpark@gmail.com****t**

** **

 

 

 

June 30, 2011

 

 

**To Whom It May Concern:**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statements on Form 10-K of Global Biotech Corp. of our report dated on June 30, 2011, with respect to the auditedfinancial statements of Global Biotech Corp., included in Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2010.

 

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

/s/ *PLSCPA*

____________________________

PLS CPA, A Professional Corp.
No. 51562.

#### Protests 976165-G, etc., of Koscherak Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before Judge Beckworth,

July 12, 1967

No. R67/87.

No. R67/88.

No. R67/89.

#### Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/21032, etc. (New York). Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States, reappraisements R62/14628, etc. (New York). Dana Perfumes Corp. *v.*United States, reappraisements R64/1005, etc. (New York).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined hi section 402a (f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the respective values of the “Canoe” cologne involved herein and that such values are the respective values listed in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being- attached to and made a part of the decisions, plus the pro rata share of the cost of packing as indicated on the invoices.
No. 59895.

#### R. E. Schanzer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 260650-K/14308 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,155)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,659
<PP&E>                                           7,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,830)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,302
<BONDS>                                        176,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (147,869)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,746
<SALES>                                         84,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,545
<CGS>                                           15,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   244
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,018
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
8040.5 .~, ,. ,..-1

### 1' .-..~. rA"iJ.; 

### /_,-,'U 

## I . i 

### 9. Contacts, With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 09/29/06 I\"a(illllaiBusines~ Aircral'l A.~sodation Eli CoW



### Organization Regional Airlinl.' Association Ain'raft Owners & Pilots Associ;uio[J ATA 

### Person Contacted Oiln Lotterer Robert Hackm:m Craig Fabian M Lopez 

## Date Response

Page A2-4
Before the First Division,

April 30, 1957

No. 60704.

#### Davies, Turner & Company *v.*United States,

protest 237323-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the record showing that the increased duties had not been paid, in accordance with section 505, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1505), the protest was dismissed.
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 44

Declaring a state of war between the United States and the Government

of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 12, 1999

Mr. CAMPBELL introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on International Relations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Declaring a state of war between the United States and

the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That pursuant to section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolu4 tion (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)), and article 1, section 8 of the

5 United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to

6 exist between the United States and the Government of

7 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Æ
---

**Exhibit 32** Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 
as Adopted Pursuant to 
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer (President) and the Principal Financial Officer (CFO) of GLOBAL BIOTECH CORP. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof: (a)
     The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended November 30, 2009, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
     Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: December 21, 2010 /s/ Louis GrecoLouis Greco,President(Principal Executive Officer)
  /s/Perry ChoinierePerry ChoiniereChief Financial Officer
 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 25, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 25, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19I0209. ALPHONSO DRETT CURRY v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 16CR222
(Reap. Dec. 10620)

#### Francesco Parisi Forwarding Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. N-3554.

(Decided November 13, 1963)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to a certain commodity, identified on the invoice as “Perchlorethylene,” exported from Yenice, Italy, and entered at the port of Newark, N.J. The merchandise was appraised on the basis of export value, as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, at $195 per metric ton, less sea freight and insurance, and packaging.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement for the present merchandise is statutory export value and that such value therefor is $170 per metric ton, less sea freight and insurance, and no packaging, as claimed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 51573.

#### Protests 526005-G, etc., of Fred H. Screaton (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62962.

#### Novik & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 309244-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veils or veilings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvio Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C.D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

March 24, 1960

No. 64014.

protest 59/23224 (New York).

#### A. R. Roubin *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 58864.

protests 213357-K, 233316-K, and 235310-K (New York).

#### Peterson Steels, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are cold-drawn and annealed steel wire rods, valued at more than 6 cents per pound, measuring 0.328 inch, 0.265 inch, and 0.240 inch in diameter, alloyed with from 1.34 to 1.59 percent of chromium, imported in coils, and that said merchandise is the same in all material respects as the cold-drawn steel rods the subject of Abstracts 5798 and 49897. Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited decisions, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56925.

#### T. H. Stemper Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 174603-K (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing no reason to disturb the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
# AirResources Board Mary 0. Nichols, Chairman

1Q01 I Street• P.O. Box 2815 Matthew Rodriquez Sacramento, California 95812 www.arb.ca.gov Edmund G. Brown Jr. Secretary for Governor Environmental Protection

October7, 2011

Mr. Andrew Steckel Rules Office Chief U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (Air-4) 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105-3901 DearMr. Steckel: I am responding to your

### inquiry related to revisions to California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) thatwere submitted to your office on January 28, 2011. The revision consisted ofvarious amendments to the Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products, title 17, California Code ofRegulations, sections 94508-94517 (Consumer Products Regulation). You asked whetherthis revision was to includeARB’s Method 310: “Determination ofVolatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products” (Method 310). I understand that Ms. Judy Yee ofmy staff, and Mr. Stanley Tong ofyour staff, have discussed this question. The rulemaking action thatwas the subjectofourJanuary 28, 2011, SIP revision did include amendments to Method 310. However, we did not intend for Method 310 to be included as a SIP revision. I understand thatyou have previously approved an older version ofMethod 310 for use in enforcing the Consumer Products Regulations. In light ofthis, I believe itwould be appropriate to use the amended Method 310 to replace the previously approved version. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (916) 324-8028. Legal questions should be directed to Mr. Robert Jenne, Assistant ChiefCounsel, Office ofLegal Affairs, at (916) 322-3762. Si

Carla

. Thkemoto, Chief Consumer Products and New Strategies Branch Planning and Technical Support Division
cc: See next page.

The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. Fora listofsimple ways you can reduce demand and cutyourenergy costs, see ourwebsite: http://www.arb.ca.gov. California Environmental Protection Agency Printedon Recycled PaperMr. Andrew Steckel October 7, 2011 Page 2

cc: Mr. StanleyTong U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (Air-4) 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105-3901 Mr. Robert Jenne Assistant ChiefCounsel Office ofLegal Affairs Ms. Judy Yee, Manager Implementation Section Planning and Technical Support Division 

# C
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bayou City Exploration, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles T. Bukowski, Chief Executive Officer and President 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:





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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Charles T. BukowskiCharles T. BukowskiChief Executive Officer and President
 May 13, 2011
[4910-13-PI



### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON "ClJRRENCES ROunNG SYMBOL 

### Federal Aviation Administration 

# Iil,,-b. R

o , ROUTINGsniBOL. INll'IMS'SIG


## * * * * * * This condition, 

### ifnot corrected, could result in adeterioration of the structural integrity of the frame. One A300-600 aeroplane operator rep0l1ed that, during aroutine inspection, the Right Hand frame 40 forward fitting between stringer 32 and stringer 33 was found cracked. The subject aeroplane had previously been modified in accordance with Airbus SB A300-57-6053 (Airbus Modification 10453). originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and conect an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The 

### MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: 

### SUM-MARY: Weareadopting anew amvorthiness 

### directive (AD) fortheproducts lis II

# I,p

. ROVTING,YMBOl above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infonnation 

### (MeAl) IN'T:l,S,!"G

# Ii Iwv.-- (DOT). RIN 2120-AA64


### AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department 

### ofTransportatioll ACTION: Final rule. I }O 

### Ail"worthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

### A300 B4-2C, B4-103, andB4-203 Airplane ;OUTI~GSYM~OL

# G 8=!t,~E:- and Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, and B4-622R Airplanes 

### 14CFR Part 39 

## l"ITIA1.SJ:I MTf. . 

## .. 2}1}IO (Docket No. FAA-2009-0993; Directorate 

### Identifier 2009-NM-089-AD; Amendme UTINGS\'MllOL 

# 39J~ktl ***t}_£l9.j Ok05 [1(,,- 

# RB

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these 

# ~""""

---- products.