alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit3.c.**

AMENDED ARTICLES OFINCORPORATION OFLOGAN COUNTY BANCSHARES, INC.

 

We, the undersigned, being President andSecretary, respectively, of Logan County BancShares, Inc. (the “corporation”),a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the provisionsof the West Virginia Corporation Act, do hereby certify as follows:

 

(a)                                  The name of thecorporation is Logan County BancShares, Inc.;

 

(b)                                 That on the 27th day of April, 1993, thefollowing Amendment was adopted to the Restated Articles of Incorporation ofsaid corporation:

 

**BE ITRESOLVED,**that Article Fourth of the RestatedArticles of Incorporation of Logan County BancShares, Inc., (issued December 27,1984), which provides that said corporation is authorized to issue a total oftwo hundred sixty thousand (260,000) shares of stock, consisting of one classof common stock having a par value of Five Dollars ($5.00) per share, beamended to hereafter provide as follows:

 

“FOURTH”                                  The total number ofshares of stock which the corporation shall have the authority to issue is fivehundred twenty thousand (520,000) shares, consisting of one class of commonstock having a par value of Two and 50/100ths Dollars ($2.50) per share.”

 

**BE ITFURTHER RESOLVED,** that except for the foregoingAmendment, the Restated Articles of Incorporation issued on December 27,1984, shall remain the same;

 

(c)                                  That said Amendmentwas adopted by the shareholders of said corporation at the annual meetingthereof on April 27, 1993;

 

(d)                                 At the time of suchAmendment, the number of the shares of stock outstanding was 254,806 shares ofcommon stock, all of which was entitled to vote on said Amendment;

 

(e)                                  That 183,803 shareswere present and voting, either in person or by proxy;

 

(f)                                    That 183,463 sharesof said stock were voted in favor of said Amendment and no shares were votedagainst such Amendment;

 

----

 

(g)                                 Two (2) shares of thenewly authorized capital stock of the par value of Two and 50/100ths Dollars($2.50) per share shall be issued in exchange for each original share of stockhaving a par value of Five Dollars ($5.00) per share, which exchange shall beissued to stockholders of this corporation of record on June 15, 1993, tobe made by July 9, 1993;

 

(h)                                 The foregoingAmendment does not affect a change in the total amount of stated capital;

 

(i)                                     This instrumentwas prepared by

 

Charles T. Bailey, Attorney-at-Law

P.O.Box 1717

Logan, West Virginia 26101

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**we have hereunto executed these Amended Articles of Incorporation on May 26,1993.

 
|   | /s/ Frank H. Oakley  |   | (SEAL) |   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |                 |   |   |   |
|   | /s/ Eddie Canterbury |   | (SEAL) |   |

 

2

----
IC 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1561 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2013 

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to improve provisions relating to the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1561 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CHIMP Act Amend3 ments of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SANCTUARY SYSTEM FOR SURPLUS CHIMPANZEES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404K(g) of the Public 

6 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 283m(g)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘and each subsequent fiscal 

9 year’’ and inserting ‘‘through fiscal year 2023’’; 

10 (B) by inserting after ‘‘$30,000,000’’ the 

11 following: ‘‘, unless the Secretary determines 

12 that reserving additional funds would enable the 

13 National Institutes of Health to operate more 

14 efficiently and economically by decreasing the 

15 overall Federal cost of supporting and main16 taining chimpanzees from fiscal year 2014 

17 through fiscal year 2023. Such a determination 

18 shall be reported to Congress by the Secretary 

19 and shall include a report, to be updated bienni20 ally, regarding the care and maintenance of the 

21 chimpanzees and costs related to such care and 

22 maintenance’’; and 

23 (C) by striking the last sentence; and 

24 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘board of di25 rectors’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary, in consultation 

26 with the board of directors’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 1561 RFH 

1 (b) GAO STUDY.—Not later than 2 years after the 

2 date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

3 of the United States shall conduct an independent evalua4 tion, and submit to the appropriate committees of Con5 gress a report, regarding chimpanzees owned or supported 

6 by the National Institutes of Health. Such report shall re7 view and assess— 

8 (1) the research status of National Institutes of 

9 Health-owned or supported chimpanzees; 

10 (2) the cost for the care and maintenance of 

11 such chimpanzees, including the cost broken down 

12 by research or retirement status, location and for 

13 transportation, as appropriate; 

14 (3) the extent to which matching requirements 

15 have been met pursuant to section 404K(e)(4) of the 

16 Public Health Service Act; and 

17 (4) any options for cost-savings for the support 

18 and maintenance of such chimpanzees that may be 

19 identified. 

Passed the Senate October 30, 2013. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Tommy A. Moore, Jr.,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain 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 periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

4.               The Company’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theCompany and based on such evaluation:

 

a)         Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b)        Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report(based on such evaluation); and

c)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)         Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)        Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date: Sept 14, 2005

 
|   | By: /s/ TOMMY A.  MOORE, JR. |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Tommy A. Moore,  Jr.         |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer     |

 

----
#### Zackery Jack RICHARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 18, 1968.

Lee R. Horton, Jr., Public Defender, and J. Michael McCarthy, Special Asst. Public Defender, Lakeland, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering, destruction of property and possession of burglary tools after a trial at which he handled his own defense. He complains that counsel was not appointed to defend him after his rejection, for no stated cause, of representation by the public defender. This case differs from Donald v. State, 166 So.2d 4S3 (Fla.App.1964), where the public defender withdrew and no replacement was appointed. It differs from King v. State, 157 So.2d 440 (Fla.App.1963), where the defendant’s rights were not communicated to him. It may not have been *smart*for Richards to reject counsel but his decision was *intelligently*(i. e. *knowingly)*made within the legal meaning of that term. He was advised of his rights. He was offered the services of the public defender or, if he could show cause, other counsel. He was told by the trial judge that he was not equipped to represent himself but he elected to do so anyway. There *32is no error. Nor is error shown in the other questions raised.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
#### Matthew CIVILETTE and Realty of Homestead, Inc., Appellants, v. MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 73-843.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Roderick R. POWELL, Sr. and James P. Powell v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 44569.

Supreme Court of Mississippi'.

Dec. 11, 1967.

Harry J. Rosenthal, Natchez, for appellants.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

*260ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice.

Appellants, Roderick R. Powell, Sr., and his son, James P. Powell, were convicted in the Circuit Court of Franklin County of killing a deer by headlighting in violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 5866-02 (Supp.1966), and were each fined $250. The evidence was ample to support the convictions.

State Game Warden Ducker and a deputy sheriff were riding on a remote road in Franklin County when they passed a small foreign car going in the opposite direction. They pulled into a side road, and the car passed their location two or three times, weaving at a slow pace from one side of the road to the other. It turned off on another road, and the officers followed with their lights off. The small car stopped on the far side of a bridge. The officers saw a man get out of the car, saw two flashes from a gun in his possession, and heard two shots fired. They pursued, arrested appellants, then returned to the place where the shots were fired, and found a dead deer. At the same location they found two hulls of a 30-30 calibre cartridge. While the appellants did not have a 30-30 calibre rifle in their possession, a 410-gauge shotgun, a 22 calibre rifle and pistol were found in their car. Appellants claimed that they were looking for their lost dog.

The theory of the State’s case was that the 410 shotgun had been used to fire the two 30-30 rifle cartridges. The shotgun had heavier steel in the barrel than the ordinary 410, and, according to the deputy sheriff, it had been recently fired. In demonstrations before the jury, the 30-30 cartridge fitted the shotgun sufficiently for the firing pin to successfully strike and fire the cartridge. The jury observed these facts. Moreover, the two officers testified that a 30-30 cartridge could be fired in this manner. The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that appellants killed a deer by headlighting and shooting it with the 410-gauge shotgun. Musgrove v. State, 236 Miss. 513, 110 So.2d 919 (1959).

The motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was properly overruled. The evidence was within appellants’ knowledge before the trial in circuit court, or it could have been discovered by diligence, and would probably not have produced a different result, if a new trial were granted. Stewart v. State, 203 Miss. 295, 33 So.2d 787 (1948).

Affirmed.

JONES, BRADY, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
Order entered May 13 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00430

- CV

IN RE MICHAEL DWAYNE WILLIAMS, Rela t or

Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court No . 10

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA8359627



### O RDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus as moot.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. A. J. CUMMINGS and Sadie Belk Cummings, his wife, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-1158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1971.

*716Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for appellant.

Kelly, Black, Black & Kenny, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.

PEARSON, Judge.

This appeal by the City of Miami Beach presents a question as to the validity of a judgment against the City. Essentially the point raised is one of procedure. It arose in the following manner: (1) A judgment for attorney’s fees supplemental to a proceeding in eminent domain was entered in favor of the appellees against the City. (2) The City appealed judgment without supersedeas bond. (3) The judgment was affirmed. (4) Appellees demanded interest on the judgment from the date of the judgment to the proposed payment thereof. (5) Appellant tendered the amount of the judgment and the payment was accepted. (6) Appellees filed in the completed eminent domain proceeding a motion “to determine liability of petitioner for interest on judgment for attorney’s fees and costs.” (7) The “motion to determine” was heard over the objection of the City that the procedure was improper. (8) The trial judge entered an additional judgment in the cause for the amount of interest that he determined was due on the original judgment for attorney’s fees.

We hold that the trial judge was without authority to enter a second judgment in the cause upon appellees’ motion “to determine liability.” After the appeal of a judgment and its affirmance by an appellate court, the trial court is without authority to take any further action in the cause other than to carry out the mandate of the appellate court. Berger v. Leposky, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 628; Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 344; King v. L & L Investors, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 671. It may not amend such a judgment.1 Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So.2d 236 (1945).

 As pointed out by the appellees, the court always has jurisdiction to supervise the enforcement of its own judgments. Cf. Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Brown, Fla.*717App.1969, 221 So.2d 214. This power is limited to lawful means of enforcement and upon a common law judgment the lawful method is execution and proceedings supplemental to execution. In the case of a judgment against a City, a petition for writ of mandamus may be employed. Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage & Finance Co., 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935).

The judgment appealed is reversed.

Reversed.

1

. There is no claim or ground alleged under RCP 1.540.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1614 

To require Certificates of Citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect 

name and date of birth determinations made by a State court and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. BLUNT, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. ENZI, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require Certificates of Citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect name and date of birth determinations 

made by a State court and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accuracy for Adoptees 

5 Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1614 IS

1 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF STATE COURT DETERMINATIONS 

2 OF NAME AND BIRTH DATE. 

3 Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

4 (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(c) A Certificate of Citizenship or other Federal doc7 ument issued or requested to be amended under this sec8 tion shall reflect the child’s name and date of birth as indi9 cated on a State court order, birth certificate, certificate 

10 of foreign birth, certificate of birth abroad, or similar 

11 State vital records document issued by the child’s State 

12 of residence in the United States after the child has been 

13 adopted or readopted in that State.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
}

| Whether deaf and
| dumb, blind, insane,
| idiotic, pauper, or
' convict.

| .
; The Name of every Person whose usual place

~

: Profession, Occupation, or Trade
of abode on the first day of June, 1850, was | F of each Male Person over 15 : Naming the State, Territory,

ond aon enes sve et

—

order of visitation.
in the order of

visitation.

numbered in the
arried. within the

in this family. ths | | | —-years of age. | or Country.

Families numbered

who cannot read & write. ;

I ee

Dwelling-houses
Persous over 20 y'ra of age ,

ie

=
Se 3
[=
| Hse
eo
&

|

-n
—-

9
(4
A

—— SS | ee ee

|
|

=|

ots.

© r 4 @ @ 2 6 eS

—~

NA

pie
” Gr f- i Tea
Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

——

|

Visit http:/Awww.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

=~-
——

Qs

—

ss

—

Ss RS 1

as
i.

a

~
~

NS

>
ih

SS\

\ iN bys

ER
SKE I
b &

YM. NS .
ys K | N *s \
te : ; ae >

ROK BS
Se
a

ma 6

f

me ax
qs
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7228

JOHN H. BECKNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versusGERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-01-848-2-19AJ) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Beckner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John H. Beckner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Beckner v. Miro , No. CA-01-848-2-19AJ (D.S.C. filed June 15, 2001; entered June 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 13

Stock Data

Cox's Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange

Ticker symbol: COX

Daily newspaper stock table listing: CoxComm A

As of February 28, 2003, there were 4,069 shareholders of record of Cox's Class
A Common Stock, two shareholders of record of Cox's Class C Common Stock and
three shareholders of record of Cox's Preferred Stock. There is no established
trading market for Cox's Class C Common Stock or Preferred Stock. There have
been no stock dividends paid on any of Cox's equity securities. Cox does not
intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. See "Management's
Discussion and Analysis - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Other," in the
company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Quarterly Market Information

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Class A Common Stock
                                                            ------------------------------
                                                             High                     Low
                                                            ------                  ------
<S>                                                         <C>                     <C>
2002
First Quarter                                               $42.09                  $31.70
Second Quarter                                               37.59                   24.50
Third Quarter                                                29.19                   18.95
Fourth Quarter                                               32.00                   21.70

2001
First Quarter                                               $50.25                   39.36
Second Quarter                                               47.00                   39.75
Third Quarter                                                44.44                   36.73
Fourth Quarter                                               42.66                   36.40
</TABLE>