alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
3.2


State
of Delaware


CERTIFICATE
of MERGER of


MERGE
HEALTHCARE INCORPORATED,


a
Wisconsin corporation, into


MERGE
HEALTHCARE INCORPORATED,


a
Delaware corporation





It is
hereby certified that:




1.           The
constituent business corporations participating in the merger herein certified
are:




(a)           Merge
Healthcare Incorporated, which is incorporated under the laws of the State of
Wisconsin; and




(b)           Merge
Healthcare Incorporated, which is incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware.




2.           An
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) has been approved,
adopted, executed and acknowledged by each of the aforesaid
constituent corporations in accordance with the
provisions of Title 8, Section 252 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.




3.           The
name of the surviving corporation in the merger herein certified is Merge
Healthcare Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, which will continue its
existence as said surviving corporation under its present name upon the
effective date of said merger pursuant to the provisions of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.




4.           The
Certificate of Incorporation of the surviving corporation, Merge Healthcare
Incorporated, a Delaware corporation as now in force and effect, shall remain
unchanged and continue to be the Certificate of Incorporation of said surviving
corporation until amended and changed pursuant to the provisions of the Delaware
General Corporation Law.




5.           The
executed Merger Agreement between the aforesaid constituent corporations is on
file at 6737 West Washington Street, Suite 2250, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214, an
office of the surviving corporation.




6.           A
copy of the aforesaid Merger Agreement will be furnished by the aforesaid
surviving corporation, on request, and without cost, to any stockholder of each
of the aforesaid constituent corporations.




7.           The
merger is to become effective on December 5, 2008.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, said surviving corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by an authorized officer, this 21st day of November, 2008.




MERGE
HEALTHCARE INCORPORATED











By:       /s/ Julie Ann B.
Schumitsch


Julie Ann B. Schumitsch


Assistant Corporate
Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51681-51682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26157]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[MT-924-5420-00-E027; MTM 86650]


Application for Recordable Disclaimer of Interest; Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States of America, pursuant to the provisions of 
Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
U.S.C. 1745 (1994)), proposes to disclaim all interest in the following 
described land to Ruth O'Connell, the owner of record:

    A tract of land located in the SW\1/4\, sec. 36, T. 12 N., R. 6 
W., Principal Meridian, Montana, more particularly described as 
follows:
    Beginning at the southwesterly corner of Brewery Lode, M.S. 1355 
also known as Corner No. 4; thence N 13 deg.48'26'' W, 522.92 feet 
along the westerly boundary of said M.S. No. 1355; thence N 
74 deg.51'58'' E, 278.46 feet along the southerly boundaries of 
Blocks 4 and 5 of the Brewery Lode addition to Marysville; thence 
along a 335.00-foot radius curve to the left having an arc length of 
198.33 feet, along the southerly boundaries of Blocks 3 and 4 of the 
Brewery Lode addition to Marysville; thence S 13 deg.09'41'' E, 
249.76 feet along the easterly boundary of M.S. No. 1355 to Corner 
No. 1 of M.S. No. 1355; thence S 39 deg.42'56'' W, 258.00 feet along 
the southerly boundary of M.S. No. 1355 to NE corner of Tract F of 
the Brewery Lode addition to Marysville; thence S 76 deg.16'34'' W, 
107.65 feet along the northerly boundary of Tract F of the Brewery 
Lode addition to Marysville; thence S 13 deg.47'26'' E, 79.64 feet 
along the westerly boundary of Tract F of the Brewery Lode addition 
to Marysville; thence S 39 deg.42'56'' W, 181.60 feet along the 
southerly boundary of M.S. No. 1355 to the point of beginning.

    The land described contains 3.77 acres in Lewis and Clark 
County.

DATES: Comments or objections should be received by December 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments or objections should be sent the State Director, 
Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 36800, 
Billings, Montana 59107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ward, BLM Montana State Office, 
P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107, 406-255-2949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The above-described land is a portion of the

[[Page 51682]]

Brewery Lode mining claim which was patented on August 24, 1889. The 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that the United States 
has no claim to or interest in the land described and issuance of the 
proposed recordable disclaimer of interest would remove a cloud on the 
title to the land. If no objections are received, the disclaimer will 
be issued.

    Dated: September 19, 1997.
Thomas P. Lonnie,
Deputy State Director, Division of Resources.
[FR Doc. 97-26157 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
**Exhibit 10.31**
Summary of Senior Management Incentive Plan
The Company’s Senior Management Incentive Plan (“SMIP”) provides thatparticipating management employees may receive a percentage of their salary asa bonus. Payment may be in the form of cash or stock. The President,Executive Vice President, Senior Vice Presidents, and certain other keyemployees participate in SMIP. SMIP payments are calculated as a percentage ofbase compensation, based on performance by the Company relative to criteriathat are established and weighted by the Compensation Committee of the Board ofDirectors. These criteria are based on measurements of the Company’sperformance deemed to be relevant to senior level managers, and to a level ofperformance that is deemed to be attainable, indicative of corporateaccomplishment, and likely to lead to corporate success. They may be based ongeneral corporate objectives, or may on specific projects or objectivesrelevant to the particular year. Not all participants necessarily participatein all criteria or to the full extent of the plan. Criteria for the mostsenior SMIP participants may include measurements of stock price performanceand corporate earnings. Maximum payouts are established on an individualbasis. Frequency of payment will be determined by the Compensation Committee.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFeasibility of generating an artificial burst in a turbulent boundary layerArtificial bursts were generated in laminar and turbulent boundary layers. The burst-like events were produced by withdrawing near-wall fluid from two minute holes separated in the spanwise direction or by pitching a miniature delta wing that was flush-mounted to the wall. Either of these actions generated streamwise vorticity and a low-speed streak that resembled a naturally occurring one. The resulting sequence of events occurred at a given location and at controlled times, allowing detailed examination and comparison with natural, random bursts by means of flow visualization and fast-response probe measurement techniques.Document ID19860018905Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsGad-El-hak, M.*(Flow Research, Inc. Kent, WA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1986Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:4003REPT-332NASA-CR-4003Accession Number86N28377Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-60-31-04CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-17951Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860018905.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21
                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                         AIRTOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

AirTouch International (California)
                   AirTouch Thailand Ltd. (Thailand)
                   AirTouch International GmbH (Germany)
                   AirTouch Taiwan, Inc. (Delaware)
                   AirTouch Asia, Inc. (Delaware)
                   AirTouch California, Inc. (Delaware)
                   AirTouch International Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
                   AirTouch Limited, Inc. (Delaware)
                   AirTouch Germany, Inc. (Delaware)
                   AirTouch Belgium, S.A. (Belgium)
                   AirTouch Cayman Holdings Unlimited
                         (Cayman Islands, British West Indies)
                   AirTouch Espana, S.A. (Spain)
                   AirTouch (Europe) B.V. (Netherlands)
                   AirTouch (Europe) Deinstleistungs-und Beteiligungs-B.V. &
                         Co. KG (Germany)
                   AirTouch International (Mauritius) Limited (Port Louis,
                         Mauritius)
                   AirTouch Japan Company Limited (Japan)
                   AirTouch Netherlands B.V. (Netherlands)
                   AirTouch Netherlands II B.V.( Netherlands)
                   India Wireless Holdings Limited (India)
                   NordicTel Holdings, AB (Sweden)
                       A.B. Europolitan (Sweden)
                       Europolitan Stores A.B. (Sweden)
                   Telecel - Comunicacoes Pessoais, SA (Portugal)
                   Zahan Communications (Mauritius) Limited (Mauritius)

AirTouch Communications Deutschland GmbH (Germany)
AirTouch Development Corporation (California)
AirTouch Satellite Services, Inc.  (Delaware)
AirTouch PCS, Inc. (Delaware)
AirTouch PCS Holding, Inc. (Delaware)
AirTouch WMC, Inc. (Delaware)

AirTouch Cellular, Inc. (Delaware)
New Par (Delaware)
<PAGE>   2
AirTouch Cellular (California)

AirTouch Cellular of Nevada  (Nevada)

AirTouch Paging (Nevada)
AirTouch Paging of California (California)
AirTouch Paging of Ohio, Inc. (Delaware)
AirTouch Paging of Texas (Nevada)
```

[104th Congress Public Law 84]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ84.104]

Public Law 104-84
104th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner as a citizen regent of 
 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. <<NOTE: Dec. 28, 
                       1995 -  [H.J. Res. 112]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 
in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
resignation of Ira Michael Heyman of California on May 27, 1994, is 
filled by the appointment of Louis Gerstner of Connecticut. The 
appointment is for a term of six years and shall take effect on the date 
on which this joint resolution becomes law.

    Approved December 28, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 112:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Nov. 7, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32





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 on Form 10-Q of China Elite Information Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) for the three month period ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the “Report”),  I, Li Kin Shing, President, Chief Executive Officer and 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.







Date:  October 22, 2010
By
/s/ Li Kin ShingLi Kin ShingPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Alexander Ronald PARSONS, Respondent.

No. 50050.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 27, 1977.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, George R. Georgieff and Charles W. Mus-grove, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

J. Eugene Kelley, Jr., of Cotten, Shivers, Gwynn & Daniel, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Based upon a conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in the above-styled ease (334 So.2d 308) and *Hornblower v. State,*331 So.2d 339 (Fla.1st DCA 1976), we issued a writ of certiorari in this cause. In view of our decision filed today in *Hornblower v. State,*351 So.2d 716 (Fla.1977), we approve the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in this cause and discharge the writ of certiorari.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, C. J., dissents.
#### METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of Dade County, Florida, Appellant, v. Vera KANEVA, Appellee.

No. 77-1309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1977.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty. and John H. Moynahan, Jr., Asst. County Atty., for appellant.

Harold C. Culmer, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Dade County, appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e).

A ruling on a motion for order of dismissal for failure to prosecute is subject to attack only on the ground that it constitutes and abuse of discretion and this burden must be borne by the losing party. *Eli Einbinder, Inc. v. Miami Crystal Ice Co.,*317 So.2d 126, 128 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).

The County has not provided this court with a record of the May 12, 1977 hearing and, therefore, has failed to meet its burden to show an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Eugene MATNEY and Leo Dean Welsh, Appellees.

No. M-77.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Joseph A. St. Ana, Jacksonville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida has appealed a final judgment dismissing the information filed against appellees herein and discharging them from custody because of the State’s failure or refusal to divulge the name of its confidential informant whose information was used in part as a basis for procuring a search warrant. The judgment is reversed upon the authority of the decision of this court in the companion case of State of Florida v. James Eugene Matney, Leo Schuty a/k/a Leo Dean Welsh, and Susan Lind Hyers a/k/a Susan F. Matney, Case No. M-82, opinion filed this date, 236 So.2d 166.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

# **INSWEB CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Kiran Rasaretnam, Chief Financial Officer of InsWeb Corporation,certify that:

(1)           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of InsWeb Corporation;

(2)           Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

(4)           The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e), for the registrantand we 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 theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.   Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 (5)          The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors:

a.    All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|                        | **/s/ KIRAN RASARETNAM** |
|------------------------|--------------------------|
| Dated: August 14, 2007 | **Kiran Rasaretnam**     |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
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




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 filing of the Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A for the Year Ended  December  31, 2005 (the  "Report") by Tarrant
Apparel Group ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.



Date:    October 10, 2007                By:       /s/    Gerard Guez
                                                --------------------------------
                                                          Gerard Guez,
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

STEVEN J. RIGNEY, :

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-06-2110

:

: (Judge McClure) 

JOHN DOE GOZENSKI, ET AL., :

Defendants :

ORDER

November 8, 2006

Background

This pro se civil rights action was recently initiated by Steven J. Rigney, an

inmate presently confined at the Mahanoy State Correctional Institution,

Frackville, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking appointment of

counsel (Record document no. 9).

Although prisoners have no constitutional or statutory rights to appointment

of counsel in a civil case, the court does have broad discretionary power to appoint

counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir.

1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1196 (1994); Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474, 477

(3d Cir. 1981). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that

appointment of counsel for an indigent litigant should be made when

circumstances indicate "the likelihood of substantial prejudice to him resulting, for

Case 4:06-cv-02110-JFM-JVW Document 10 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 3
2

example, from his probable inability without such assistance to present the facts

and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case." 

Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984). 

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently recognized that

“[i]ndigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to

appointed counsel.” Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002)

(citation omitted). It also reiterated that the criteria developed in Tabron should be

employed in addressing the appointment of counsel issue.

Rigney's motion fails to set forth sufficient special circumstances or factors

that would warrant appointment of counsel. Tabron, supra, at 155-56. In the

pleadings submitted by Plaintiff to date, he has demonstrated that he is capable of

presenting comprehensible arguments. Furthermore, this court's liberal

construction of pro se pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), coupled

with Plaintiff's apparent ability to litigate this action pro se, mitigate against the

appointment of counsel. Moreover, the legal issues are relatively uncomplicated,

and the court cannot say, at least at this point, that Rigney will suffer substantial

prejudice if he is forced to prosecute this case on his own. 

Therefore, Rigney's motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. In

the event, however, that future proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the

matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon a motion properly filed by

Case 4:06-cv-02110-JFM-JVW Document 10 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 3
the Plaintiff.

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 

counsel (Record document no. 9) is denied.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 4:06-cv-02110-JFM-JVW Document 10 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 3