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

Sec. 180.1006                  State of Wisconsin
Wis. Stats.           Department of Financial Institutions

             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT (Stock, for-profit Corporation)


A. The present corporate name (prior to any change effected by this amendment)
   is:

 GTE North Incorporated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Text of Amendment (Refer to the existing articles of incorporation and the
 instruction on the reverse of this form. Determine those items to be changed
 and set forth the number identifying the paragraph in the articles of
 incorporation being changed and how the amended paragraph is to read.)

 RESOLVED, THAT the articles of incorporation be amended as follows:

 ARTICLE 1 The name of the corporation is Verizon North Inc.







B. Amendment(s) adopted on   June 15, 2000
                           -----------------------------------------------------

(Indicate the method of adoption by checking (X) the appropriate choice below.)

   ( ) In accordance with sec. 180.1002, Wis. Stats. (By the Board of Directors)
OR
   (X) In accordance with sec. 180.1003, Wis. Stats. (By the Board of Directors
   and Shareholders)
OR
   ( ) In accordance with sec. 180.1005, Wis. Stats. (By Incorporators or Board
   of Directors, before issuance of shares)

C. Executed on  June 30, 2000                     /s/ Rosalynn Christian
               ---------------------------      --------------------------
                       (Date)                           (Signature)

Title: ( ) President (XX) Assistant Secretary
or other officer title Assistant Secretary      Rosalynn Christian
                      --------------------      --------------------------
                                                       (Printed name)

This document was drafted by Rosalynn Christian
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                               (Name of the individual who drafted the document)

FILING FEE - $40.00, or more  SEE instructions, suggestions and procedures on
following page.

DFI/CORP/4(R12/98) Use of this form is voluntary.

W1005 - 6/4/99 CT Systems Online
#### Charles E. Day, Plaintiff, v NYP Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants. Denise A. Rubin, Nonparty Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 370]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about January 17, 2001, which imposed a sanction of $1,000 on nonparty attorney Denise Rubin for misconduct in court, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the sanction vacated.

Nonparty appellant is the attorney for defendants in this personal injury action. The record reflects a case fraught with acrimony and vituperation between opposing counsel. Against this backdrop, counsel appeared before Judge Weissberg to argue a motion and cross motion relating to discovery. The Judge informed counsel at the beginning of the argument that he was well aware of the history of the attorneys’ conduct before another judge and warned that “if anybody says anything inflammatory or unprofessional, that act and that act alone will subject you to a $10,000 sanction.”

Citing the backdrop of impolite and pugnacious behavior by the attorneys in an overly contentious proceeding, the court also warned that anyone who interrupted again would be fined $1,000 per interruption. The Judge fined appellant twice, after appellant interjected herself prematurely while he was speaking.

*343This case demonstrates the virtually inevitable consequence of uncivil and uncooperative conduct among and between lawyers and the spillover effect such conduct has in subsequent proceedings. However, the transcript as a whole, including the above-mentioned two instances which provoked the court, does not, in our judgment, rise to a level justifying a formal sanction *(contrast, Mink v Conifer Park,*142 AD2d 899).

Furthermore, although the IAS court gave the attorneys notice of its intent to impose sanctions, it did not afford appellant an opportunity to be heard before imposing them *(see, Dubai Bank v Ayyub,*187 AD2d 373; *see also,*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]). Moreover, the court did not set forth any reasons why the sum of $1,000 is an appropriate sanction for an interruption *(see, Spinnell v Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods.,*239 AD2d 175), an essential aspect of compliance with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2. The rules governing sanctions are designed to protect people against the precise type of sanction imposed here: summary imposition of fines in a moment of pique. Accordingly, the sanction is vacated. Concur — Tom, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No s

. 1D 1 8

- 3465 1D18

- 3469 1D18

- 3471 1D18

- 3473 1D18

- 3475 1D18

- 3477 1D18

- 3478 1D18

- 3479 1D18

- 3481 1D18

- 3482 1D18

- 3483

_____________________________
J OHN M ARSHALL , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Robert E. Long, Jr. , Judge.

August 8 , 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant, John Marshall, appeals the trial court’s failure to render a written order finding him competent to proceed after2 pronouncing Appellant competent to proceed at the conclusion of his competency hearing. 1 The State properly concedes error.

We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to render a written order adjudicating Appellant competent to proceed, nunc pro tunc, consistent with its oral findings. See Merriell v. State , 169 So. 3d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)

.
R EVERSED and R E MANDED

.
O RFINGER , E DWARDS , and E ISNAUGLE , Associate Judges, concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Kevin Alvarez, of Law Office of Kevin Alvarez P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

1 Appellant does not argue that the trial court failed to make an independent competency determination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         136,208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  272,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               422,421
<PP&E>                                      14,085,926
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,683,752)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,232,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,040,204
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,192,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,232,970
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,245,660
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,637,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (391,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (391,744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (391,744)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 267/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 267 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6427 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 267

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6427 July 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1217 of 26 July 2021 laying down the rules and conditions for verification queries by carriers, provisions for data protection and security for the carriers’ authentication scheme as well as fall-back procedures in case of technical impossibility | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1218 of 26 July 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 79/2012 as regards the storage of and automated access to the information on the VAT exempted importations under the ‘import scheme’ | 12 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1219 of 26 July 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/128 setting the net balance available for EAGF expenditure | 14 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1220 of 26 July 2021 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/76 as regards harmonised standards on safety rules for the construction and installation of firefighters lifts and behaviour of lifts in the event of fire (
  1
  ) | 17 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1217 of 26 July 2021 laying down the rules and conditions for verification queries by carriers, provisions for data protection and security for the carriers’ authentication scheme as well as fall-back procedures in case of technical impossibility

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1218 of 26 July 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 79/2012 as regards the storage of and automated access to the information on the VAT exempted importations under the ‘import scheme’

12

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1219 of 26 July 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/128 setting the net balance available for EAGF expenditure

14

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1220 of 26 July 2021 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/76 as regards harmonised standards on safety rules for the construction and installation of firefighters lifts and behaviour of lifts in the event of fire (
  1
  )

1

17

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### THE STATE *vs.*WETHERALL & DUNSEY.

Any trade or business carried on in a town, or populous neighborhood, or near a public road or highway, which produces noxious of offensive smells, to the annoyance of the neighborhood, or persons travelling along the public road, is a common nuisance, and is indictable. (Roscoe, 741.) *It is not necessary that the smells should he injurious to health.*It is sufficient, if they be offensive to the senses. (Archhold, 698; *Roscoe Evid.,*738.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,388
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,705)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,241
<PP&E>                                          55,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                (26,113)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,448
<BONDS>                                         32,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,970
<SALES>                                          9,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               247,462
<CGS>                                            6,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  210,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (478)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,262
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,987
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,031
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39


</TABLE>
#### Sarah GORISKY, Appellant, v. Jessie PAETRO and Sidney Paetro, Individually, and as husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 72-809.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Michael Gentile, Respondent, v City of New York Department for the Aging/SCRIE, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 674]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 12, 2000, which granted respondent’s motion seeking reargument, but, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered on or about November 3, 1999, granting petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent, dated June 2, 1998, denying petitioner a Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE), and remanded the matter for a new determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforementioned order and judgment, entered on or about November 3, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of July 12, 2000.

The article 78 court properly rejected respondent’s contention that a tenant may be denied a SCRIE where there has been no recent increase in the tenant’s legal regulated rent, since petitioner currently comes within the guidelines of SCRIE eligibility. A SCRIE applicant who meets the eligibility criteria set forth in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-509 (b) (2) *(see also, Nunez v Giuliani,*239 AD2d 163, 163-164, *affd*91 NY2d 935) is entitled to an order of exemption. *396Concur — Williams, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**FROZEN      FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

|                                |   |                                                                                                                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:                June 29, 2006 |   | /s/                Thomas G. Yetter                                                                                                                            |   |
|                                |   | Thomas                G. YetterSenior                Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerPrincipal                Financial and Accounting Officer  |   |
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 905

To require the Bureau of Land Statistics to collect and report unemployment

and related statistics by congressional districts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 16, 1993

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and Labor

A BILL

To require the Bureau of Land Statistics to collect and

report unemployment and related statistics by congressional districts.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 4 of the Act of March 4, 1913 (29 U.S.C.

4 2), relating to the collection, collation, and reports of labor

5 statistics, is amended by striking out ‘‘by such smaller

6 geographical subdivisions’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

7 ‘‘by congressional districts and such smaller geographical

8 subdivisions’’.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13682]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
     Form 1-SA, SEC File No. 270-661, OMB Control No. 3235-0721

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 1-SA (17 CFR 239.92) is used to file semiannual reports by 
Tier 2 issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under 
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Tier 2 issuers 
under Regulation A conducting offerings of up to $50 million within a 
12-month period are required to file Form 1-SA. Form 1-SA provides 
semiannual, interim financial statements and information about the 
issuer's liquidity, capital resources and operations after the issuer's 
second fiscal quarter. The purpose of the Form 1-SA is to better inform 
the public about companies that have conducted Tier 2 offerings under 
Regulation A. We estimate that approximately 55 issuers file Form 1-SA 
annually. We estimate that Form 1-SA takes approximately 187.43 hours 
to prepare. We estimate that 85% of the 187.43 hours per response 
(159.32 hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual burden of 
8,763 hours (159.32 hours per response x 55 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this 
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov. 
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: 
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace 
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: 
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days 
of this notice.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13682 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51002

Summary Calendar

RUDY STANKO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-89

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rudy Stanko appeals the denial of his complaint, in which he sought relief

under the Declaratory Judgment Act, relative to his assertion that the

prohibition against his possessing a firearm or ammunition is unconstitutional. 

He argues that the district court erred when it treated his claims as falling

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or habeas corpus.

District courts are directed to screen complaints filed by prisoners in civil

actions and dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 20, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-51002 Document: 00512246841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2013
No. 12-51002

be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We review such dismissals de novo,

accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewing them in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 279 (5th

Cir. 2010). 

To the extent that Stanko relies on the Declaratory Judgment Act to

challenge the prohibition against his possession of a firearm and ammunition

imposed after he was convicted of violating the Federal Meat Inspection Act, he

fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Johnson v. Onion, 761

F.2d 224, 226 (5th Cir. 1985). Further, to the extent that he asserts a claim for

declaratory reliefthat in effect attacks the constitutionality of the conviction and

sentence imposed for violating the Federal Meat Inspection Act and he has not

shown that his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus, he fails to state a claim for which relief can be

granted. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643-48 (1997); Clarke v. Stadler,

154 F.3d 186, 190-91 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Accordingly, the district court’s

denial of Stanko’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-51002 Document: 00512246841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2013