alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 3.1


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                       TO THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                            OF PREFERRED VOICE, INC.



         Preferred Voice,  Inc., a corporation  organized and existing under and
by  virtue  of the  General  Corporation  Law  of the  State  of  Delaware  (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify:

         FIRST:  That  Article  FOURTH  of  the  Corporation's   Certificate  of
Incorporation is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  FOURTH.  The  total  number  of  shares  of  stock  which  the
         corporation   shall   have   authority   to  issue  is  fifty   million
         (50,000,000).  The par value of each of such shares is One Tenth of One
         Cent  ($.001).  All such  shares are of one (1) class and are shares of
         Common Stock.

         SECOND:  That  the  foregoing  amendment  (the  "Amendment")  has  been
approved by the  Corporation  pursuant to a resolution of its Board of Directors
and that  thereafter,  pursuant to a resolution  of the Board of  Directors,  an
annual meeting of the  stockholders of the Corporation was duly called and held,
upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware,  at which meeting the necessary  number of shares as required
by statute were voted in favor of Amendment.

         THIRD:  That the  Amendment  was duly  adopted in  accordance  with the
provisions  of  Section  242 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of
Delaware.

         FOURTH:  That this  Certificate of Amendment shall become  effective on
the date and at the time this  Certificate  of  Amendment is duly filed with and
accepted by the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF this  Certificate of Amendment has been executed for
Preferred Voice,  Inc., by William J. Schereck,  its President,  this 5th day of
October, 2001.


                                             ------------------------------
                                             William J. Schereck, President
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 Golden Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended December 1, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Patty Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Dated:   January 11, 2007



/s/ Patty Townsend
------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon
request.

                                       26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation Consolidated Financial Statements as of December
31,  1998 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                         6,731
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 39,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   1,095
<INVENTORY>                                                  259,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             311,715
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             1,256,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        267,879
<BONDS>                                                      349,775
<COMMON>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   171,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               1,256,367
<SALES>                                                    1,111,541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           1,111,541
<CGS>                                                        950,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              1,087,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            36,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (9,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 (3,101)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (6,503)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (6,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
        

</TABLE>
To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

Date: 12/17/2010 09:48AM

Subject: PVC MACT Questions from VI

Hello Jodi,

In preparing for the January workshop on the PVC MACT, we are completing some 

internal analysis of the data bases and a few questions have come up. For the resin

analytes, has ERG begun calculating MACT floor yet, and which data base are they 

being directed to use?

a.) VI Concentration data base 9-28-10

b.) Resin mass data base from ERG portal

c.) Both

If ERG is using the resin mass data base from the ERG portal, will they be 

normalizing the data for production rate through the facility on that day? Also 

regarding the resin data, did Certainteed ever submit any resin analysis? 

Overall have there been any revisions to the data bases on the ERG portal? One area

to call to your attention is in the stack emissions data, a number of analytes names

are either misspelled or entered slightly differently even though they are the same 

analyte from one facility to another. On the aggregated data, these types of 

inconsistencies give the appearance of unique analytes when they are the same ones 

found from other facilities. 

Regarding the January workshop, given the importance of completing the PVC MACT 

rule, industry prefers to focus the time only on the PVC MACT analysis and 

discussion and not to include any time for EDC/VCM discussion. If the date has been

set, please let me know so that we can begin to make travel arrangements. Please 

give me a call at your convenience to discuss this. Thank you. 

Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

1737 King Street Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

Direct: 571.970.3392

Mobile: 571.216.4474

Fax: 571.970.3271

Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylindesign.com
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 553 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 553

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 28, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4556) making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
H. Res. 553

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 28, 1994.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 4556) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes. All

points of order against the conference report and against its

consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2021252EN.01001201.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 1 April 2021 — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR. — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

(Case C-218/21)

(2021/C 252/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Defendant: DSR. — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

| 1. | Is it compatible with European Union law, in particular Annex IV to the [Sixth] VAT Directive, (1) for point 2.27 of List I annexed to the VAT Code to be applied in such a way that it is taken to mean that it includes the repair and maintenance of lifts carried out by the undertaking to which the facts ... above relate and that it results in the application of the reduced rate of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with European Union law, in particular Annex IV to the [Sixth] VAT Directive, (1) for point 2.27 of List I annexed to the VAT Code to be applied in such a way that it is taken to mean that it includes the repair and maintenance of lifts carried out by the undertaking to which the facts ... above relate and that it results in the application of the reduced rate of VAT?

| 2. | Is it compatible with European Union law, in particular Annex IV to the [Sixth] VAT Directive, for that provision of the VAT Code to be applied in such a way that it also takes into account other provisions of national law, namely Article 1207, Article 204(1)(e) and (3), and Article 1421(2)(b) of the Civil Code (provisions governing the concepts of works contract and immovable property and the presumption that a lift is a common part of a building in co-ownership)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with European Union law, in particular Annex IV to the [Sixth] VAT Directive, for that provision of the VAT Code to be applied in such a way that it also takes into account other provisions of national law, namely Article 1207, Article 204(1)(e) and (3), and Article 1421(2)(b) of the Civil Code (provisions governing the concepts of works contract and immovable property and the presumption that a lift is a common part of a building in co-ownership)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
#### MAX BAUER MEAT PACKER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. GURRENTZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 72-1331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 17, 1973.

A. Jay Cristol and Steven Mishan, Miami, for appellant.

*509Ainslee R. Ferdie, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff after a non-jury trial. The action was brought for breach of contract to sell a large quantity of frozen meat. Although the appellee successfully recovered a judgment in the trial court, it has nevertheless cross-assigned error.

Appellant’s points on appeal urge that the action was barred by the statute of frauds and that the evidence was insufficient. We find that neither point presents error on this record.

Appellee’s points raised by cross-assignment urge error upon the court’s refusal to admit a deposition into evidence and an alleged error in the computation of damages.- The use of the deposition at trial was barred pursuant to Rule 1.330, RCP, 30 F.S.A. A review of the record on this point does not reveal a clear abuse of discretion in view of the provision of the rule that a deposition may not be used when it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party attempting to present the deposition. Several factors enter into this determination, and if the ruling of the trial court had been made at pretrial conference so that the plaintiff would have been on notice that the witness would have to be available at trial, we would have given more serious consideration to the question of a possible abuse of discretion.

Appellee’s second point directed to the amount of the damages is insufficient in view of the rule stated in City of Pensacola for Use Chadbourne v. Quina, 138 Fla. 510, 189 So. 688 (1939).

Affirmed.
# C_2022073EN.01001801.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/18

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2021: Marián Kočner against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-528/20 Kočner v Europol

(Case C-755/21 P)

(2022/C 73/23)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Appellant: Marián Kočner (represented by: M. Mandzák, M. Para, advokáti)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in full;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | declare that the General Court is to decide on the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the General Court is to decide on the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two harmful events. The appeal is in total made up of six grounds. The General Court is alleged to have erred in the legal assessment of the case and to have incorrectly applied the substantive law, especially as regards the joint and several liability for damage of the defendant and the Member State, to have incorrectly interpreted the national law, to have incorrectly established that there was a lack of a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the harmful event, to have stated insufficient reasons for the judgment under appeal and to have distorted the evidence.

---
No. 11312.

#### Hall *v.*Hall et al.

Decided December 23, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Albert Bettinger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. C. Cochran*and *Mr. William L. Dickson,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 99.11**

** **

**CONSENT OF MICHAEL GABORA**

** **

March 27, 2013

 

Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

 

**Re: Brigus Gold Corp.**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection withthe following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F forthe year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consentrelates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (C)the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2012, (ii) the inclusion or incorporationby reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558and 333-167757), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, orto any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporatedby reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Octo ber 18 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk October 18 , 2016

15 4 0 62 ( 63 )

MENARD, INC.

, P etitioner

- Appell ant

, SC: 15 40 62

v COA: 3 25718

Tax Tribunal : 00

- 441600,

14

- 001918

- TT

CITY OF ESCANABA

, Respondent

- Appellee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the Michigan Retailers Association

and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED.

The amicus brief submitted on Octo ber 12, 2016, is accepted for filing

.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 64
          - [WC Docket No. 13-39; Report No. 3098]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petitions for Reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Michael R. Romano, on behalf of NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association (“NTCA”), and Kevin G. Rupy, on behalf of USTelecom—The Broadband Association.

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 2, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 13, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Zach Ross, Wireline Competition Bureau, at: (202) 418-1580; email:                         *Zachary.Ross@fcc.gov.*

      ( print page 33916)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3098, released July 2, 2018. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:                     *http://apps.fcc.gov/​ecfs/​.*                     The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.                

*Subject:*                     Rural Call Completion, Second Report and Order, FCC 18-45, published at 83 FR 21723, May 10, 2018, in WC Docket No. 13-39. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).                     *See also*47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     2.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-14859 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
NUMBER 13-14-00143-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Victor Xavier Snell, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee.

On appeal from the 275th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Victor Xavier Snell, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number CR-2198-13-E. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 

appeal is not made a part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 

37.1, 44.3, 44.4.
2

Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, 

Rolando Garza, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification. 

If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is 

further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of receipt of this 

notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, No. 04-03-

00473-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for 

publication) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified 

to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the 

form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual 

allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. Cf. Woods v. State, 108 

S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) 

and holding that recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the 

record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the 

certification affecting appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1, 10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

26th day of June 2014.