alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF DELAWARE
SECRETARY OF STATE
DIVISIONS OF CORPORATIONS
FILED 09:00 AM 07/06/1999
991277807 - 2192400

                                                          ORIGINAL


                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                      OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                         OF MARK I INDUSTRIES, INC.

Mark I Industries, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Specialty
Retail Services, Inc. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a
proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said
corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a
meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for consideration
thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
follows:

     RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation
be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered "Article I" so that,
as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:

     "FIRST:  The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the
"Corporation") is Foodvision.com, Inc."

     SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to Section 228 of the General
Corporation Law, a majority of the holders of the common stock of said
corporation entitled to vote on the proposed amendments provided their
written consent thereto.

     THIRD: That said amendments were duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.

     FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced
under or by reason of said amendments.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Mark I Industries, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be signed by Paul R. Smith, an authorized officer, this
18th day of June 1999.

By: /s/ Paul R. Smith
----------------------
Name: Paul R. Smith
Title: President

Attest:

/s/ Robert J. Mottern
-----------------------
Robert J. Mottern
Secretary
No. 75-6867.

#### Pryor *v.*Tennessee.

Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 56024.

protests 157041-K, etc. (Baltimore).

#### Julius Garfinckel & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
## NO. 12-09-00154-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ IN RE: SC OTT BROWN, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING § MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Relator Scott Brown i s confine d in the Smith C ounty Jail after being found in conte mpt for failur e t o p ay child support, spousal maintenance, and contra ctual alimony. He se eks a w rit of ha be a s c or pu s o rd e ri ng his re le a se a nd , ina mot ionfo r e me rg e nc y r e lie f, se e ks rele a se on ba il pe nd ing dis po sit ionof his ha be a s pet iti on . Ba se d upo n our re vie w of Re lator ’s pe tit ion , the re sp on se of Shanna Brown, rea l pa

rty in interest, and the rec ord pre sented, we conclude that Relator has f ailed to show he is entitled to the relief reque sted. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a), ( d). Ac cordingly, Relator's motion for emer gency relief and his pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus are denied . All other pending mot ion s a rede nie d a s mo ot. Opinion delivere d May 29, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41215

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTONIO MENDEZ, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-1210-ALL

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Mendez, Jr.,

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mendez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41215

2

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
DENY and Opinion Filed January 15 , 2021

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05

- 21

- 00023

- CV IN RE JOSEPHINE MARI E WORLEY , Relator Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296

- 52296

- 2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida

- Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle Relator ’ s January 12, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus complains th e trial
court refused to hear a second amended motion to suspend the final divorce decree. Based on the petition and the r ecord before us, we conclude the relator has failed to
show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that she has no ade quate appellate remedy. 1 Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 2

210023F.P05

1 In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus standard)

.
2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
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  Annual  Report  of  Calypso  Financial  Services,
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, Edward F. Cowle,  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
------------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
September 28, 2004

          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 has been provided to the Company and will be
          retained by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
          Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are
          accompanying  the Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906
          of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
          1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being
          filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

### OFFICIAL BUSINESS

<5- ^o4 

### STATE OF TEXAS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 12/3/2014 MCVAY, ABELALFRED Tr. Ct. No. 137 On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's Pro Se motion for an extension 

### oftime in which to file the Petitidn-JpVDiscretionary Review. The time to file the 

### petition has been extended to Friday, "February 13, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary Review must be filed with The Court ofCriminal Appeals. Abel Acosta, Clerk 

### ABELALFRED MCVAY """ SPN# 01871959 HARRIS COUNTY JAIL 1200 BAKER ST. H( Ct. No. A^SPQs

0 2 1W G&$No.901-1<3=0( 

### MAILEDFROMZIPp^57^4 P1TNE7 BQ»,VES 

### $ 00.265

£-00997&R
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 

21, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00396-CV

IN RE VN PRINTING COMPANY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-03463

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On May 7, 2013, relator VN Printing Company filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Brent 
2

Gamble, presiding judge of the 270th District Court of Harris County, to vacate his 

order requiring the plaintiffs’ depositions to be taken via the internet.

Relator has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of writ of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and McCally.
No. 53060.

#### L. G. Motor (Staines), Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 66447-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). 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 involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
|   | Exhibit 21.1 |
|--------|--------------|

|  Name of Subsidiary                    |  Jurisdiction of Organization |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                        |                               |   |   |
| Media Depot, Inc.                      | Delaware                      |   |   |
| (Wholly owned subsidiary of            |                               |   |   |
|  Colorado Rare Earths, Inc.)           |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
| Media Max, Inc.                        | Pennsylvania                  |   |   |
| (Wholly owned Subsidiary of  |                               |   |   |
|  Media Depot, Inc.)                    |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
| Seaglass Holding Corp.                      | Nevada                        |   |   |
| (Wholly owned subsidiary of            |                               |   |   |
|  Colorado Rare Earths, Inc.)           |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
|                                        |                               |   |   |
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Astralis Ltd. (the "Company") certifies that:

(1)   the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the three and twelve
      month periods ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  April 17, 2007       By: /s/ Dr. Jose A. O'Daly
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Dr. Jose A. O'Daly
                                 Chairman of the Board, Chief Scientific Officer
                                 Interim Chief Executive Officer and
                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer

      This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, Appellant *v.*John S. Mihalick, Appellee.

Submitted on briefs, May 8, 1981,

to President Judge Crtimlish and Judges Rogers and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three.

*Harold H. Cramer,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Ward T. Williams,*Chief Counsel of Transportation, and *Harvey Bartle, III,*Acting Attorney General, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

*38June 12, 1981:

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish,

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, appeals a Berks County Common Pleas Court order which sustained the appeal of John S. Mihalick from the thirty-day suspension of his driving privileges. We reverse.

On February 20, 1979, Mihalick was convicted of passing a stopped school bus in violation of Section 3345 of the Vehicle Code.1 Upon receipt of the certification of conviction, the Department notified Mihalick that his privileges were suspended for thirty days as mandated by Section 1535 of the Vehicle Code.2

The lower court sustained Mihalick’s appeal on the strength of his assertion that, due to his advanced age and medical condition, he failed to observe the bus’s flashing lights.

In *Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Seiscio,*56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 45, 424 A.2d 566 (1981), we held that an underlying criminal conviction may not be collaterally attacked in a subsequent suspension appeal which is civil in nature.3

Reversed.

Order

The Berks County Common Pleas Court order dated July 30,1979, at No. 2724,1979, is reversed; and the suspension of the motor vehicle operating privileges of John S. Mihalick is reinstated.

Date: June 12, 1981

1

 75 Pa. C. S. §3345.

2

 75 Pa. C. S. §1535.

3

 In *Seiscio,*we held that the trial court erred when it sustained an appeal for a violation of Section 3345 (then Section 1018) on the strength that the appellant below was unrepresented by counsel.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Theodore Baker, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 481]

—On the Court’s own motion, it is

Ordered that the decision and order of this Court dated July 3, 1995, which decided the defendant’s appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered October 22,. 1976, and by permission, an order of the same court (Barasch, J.), dated November 9, 1992, is recalled and vacated and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered October 22, 1976, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court (Barasch, J.), dated November 9, 1992, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction and his separate motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate the sentence imposed thereon.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed as academic, the judgment is vacated, and the indictment is dismissed.

*552The defendant has died and the appeals are dismissed upon the ground that the criminal prosecution has abated by reason of the death *(see, People v Mintz,*20 NY2d 753, *mod*20 NY2d 770; *People v Feliciano,*68 NY2d 790). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
-----"Kyhos, Michael" <MKyhos@ouc.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Kyhos, Michael" <MKyhos@ouc.com> 

Date: 07/12/2010 08:33AM 

cc: "Blair, Garfield" <GBlair@ouc.com>, "Corbett, Mark N." <MCorbett@ouc.com> 

Subject: Written Extension Request for OUC Stanton Energy Center (Plant ID: 07572) 

Dear Ms. Alicea:

Attached please find the Orlando Utilities Commission’s Stanton Energy Center (Plant ID: 07572) written 

request for extension to the NPDES effluent guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating 

Industry information collection request questionnaire. Per the USEPA’s original correspondence, this written 

request for extension is being submitted via e-mail.

Please contact me at the numbers below if you have any questions or if you need any additional information 

concerning this request.

Thank you,

Mike Kyhos 

Michael Kyhos CHMM, QEP

Senior Environmental Engineer

Orlando Utilities Commission

407-434-3036 (office)

407-376-5314 (cell)

407-244-8794 (fax)

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C0854DO... 8/26/2011
Before the First Division,

December 21, 1960

No. 64967.

#### Venetianaire Corp. of America and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23370, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. N. & E. Walter & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 22, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00281

- CR

Robert Murphy, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, RO SE , AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and

the parties’ arguments, the Court h olds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The appellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
No. 65584.

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

protests 59/33430, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of knit nylon gloves similar in use to cotton gloves, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter J. Tallian, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 12, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Peter J. Tallian   
|Peter J. Tallian       
|Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Margarita Pagan, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 829]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grújales, J.), rendered December 10, 1993, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review her contention that the hearing court erred by denying suppression of the drugs and the gun that were recovered from the *572automobile in which she was seated at the time of the commission of the crime and her arrest *(see, People v Manuli,*156 AD2d 388; *People v Claudio,*64 NY2d 858). In any event, we find no error in the hearing court’s conclusion that the arresting police officer had probable cause to search the automobile for evidence of the crime, contraband, or a weapon under the automobile exception to the search-warrant requirement *(see, People v Galak,*81 NY2d 463; *People v Blasich,*73 NY2d 673; *People v Belton,*55 NY2d 49; *People v Bonilla,*199 AD2d 519; *People v Fulton,*189 AD2d 778).

Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant’s contention that she was prejudiced by the admission into evidence, for background purposes, of testimony concerning so-called buy-and-bust operations *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879; *People v Woney,*205 AD2d 480). In any event, the admission of this limited testimony was necessary to make the subject matter of a crime intelligible to the jury, to describe the scene of the crime, and to explain a contested issue *(see, People v Garcia,*196 AD2d 433, *affd*83 NY2d 817; *People v Martinez,*179 AD2d 501; *People v Almodovar,*178 AD2d 133; *People v Ellsworth,*176 AD2d 127; *People v Tucker,*102 AD2d 535).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
No. 45036.

#### Protests 537687-G, etc., of P. Alonge & Bro. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
ldi.corridor: LDI values in stream corridor upstream of site.
Received from Ken Weaver on 7/27/2010.  Any site with any LDI value >
2 flagged for exclusion.

s.303d.txt: 303d listings for DO and nutrients

allstr00.txt: Nutrient data retrieved from STORET and GWIS from 1989
to 2009.

s.ldi.txt: Watershed LDI screen.  LDI values in watershed > 3 excluded.

s.sci.wbi.txt: Screens based on average SCI values of at least 40 within
a WBID. Any WBID with average value < 40 excluded.

s.sci.site.org.txt: Screen based on SCI summarized at site level.  Any site with
consecutive values of SCI < 40 is excluded.

s.nox.new.txt: Screen WBIDS based on average NOx concentration in WBID
> 0.35 mg/L.

s.bpj.site.txt: Site exclusions based on FDEP best professional
judgement.

sites01.final.txt: Table matching site code to WBID code, and
providing regions.