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


ROSS
MILLER
 Secretary
of State
 204 North
Carson Street, Ste1
 Carson
City, Nevada 89701-4299
 (775)
684-5708
 Website:
secretaryofstate.biz
 
 Document
Number
 20080369540-17
 Filing
Date and Time
 05/30/2008
1:57 AM
 Entity
Number
 C17649-1995
 Certificate
of Amendment
 
 Certificate
of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
 For
Nevada Profit Corporations
 (Pursuant
to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)
 
 1. Name
of corporation:
 
 Communicate.com
Inc.
 
 2. The
articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):
 
 1. The
name of this corporation is:
 
 Live
Current Media Inc.
 
 3. The
vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them
to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion
of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or
series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation
have voted in favor of the amendment is: 52.95%
 
 4.
Effective date of filing (optional):
 
 5.
Officer Signature (Required): /s/ C. Geoffrey Hampson
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, W.
Gray Hudkins, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of PC
Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of PC Group, Inc.





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





Dated:  March
      18, 2010
            /s/  W. Gray
    HudkinsW.
      Gray Hudkins, President andChief
      Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23.1   CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


The Board of Directors
Alternative Living Services, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-32907) on Form S-8 (No. 333-37737) on Form S-3 (No. 333-38595) on Form
S-8 (No. 333-39705) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-45433) on Form S-3 of Alternative
Living Services, Inc. of our report dated February 17, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Alternative Living Services, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and all
related schedules, which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report
on Form 10-K of Alternative Living Services, Inc.


                            KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 1998
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-14628

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00361-RWS-AJB-13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE EDENILSON-REYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(November 13, 2012)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 11-14628 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 1 of 3 
Defendant’s challenge, under Fed.R.Evid. 410, to the admissibility of a

statement made by defendant in a plea proffer was not preserved in the district

court, and therefore is reviewed on appeal only for plain error. During his direct

testimony at trial, the defendant told the jury that he did not know what was inside

the suitcase, but omitted any reference to the fact that the co-worker who asked

him to deliver the suitcase had previously asked him to transport cocaine. At the

bench conference before the prosecution introduced defendant’s statement to that

effect from the plea proffer, defense counsel receded from his prior position that

the content of defendant’s statements in the plea proffer could not be used in crossexamination. Defense counsel modified his position, acknowledged that

defendant’s statements in the plea proffer could be used in cross-examination, but

that the prosecutor should not refer to such statements as having been in the

context of a plea proffer or in plea negotiations. Accordingly, the judge ruled

without objection that the content of defendant’s proffer statement was appropriate

for cross-examination, but that the prosecutor could not refer to the context of the

plea proffer itself or the plea negotiations. On appeal, defendant now challenges

the admissibility of the content of defendant’s previous statement in the plea

proffer, the precise ground to which there was no objection at the bench

conference. Even if there were error, it was not plain error. Defendant cites no case

2

Case: 11-14628 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
suggesting there was obvious error, and defendant has not established that

admission of the statement affected the outcome of the proceedings or seriously

affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Defendant’s challenge to the legality of the stop of his truck, and the seizure

of a suitcase full of currency is without merit. There was probable cause based

upon the cumulative information in the possession of government agents about the

drug conspiracy and the information connecting defendant thereto from the several

intercepted telephone calls between defendant and Daniel whose telephone was

being tapped pursuant to probable cause and a warrant. Moreover, there was also

reasonable suspicion for the stop, and valid consent for the search. 

The other arguments of defendant on appeal are wholly without merit, and

warrant no further discussion. 

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-14628 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 3 of 3
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134089(26) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134089 COA: 272761 Kent CC: 03-001780-FC JAMES ROBERT MCQUEEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 29, 2007 order is considered, an d it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 22, 2008

Clerk
#### Steve EDMONDS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 17, 1956.

*446James C. Brock, Harlan, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F, Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was fined $100 and sentenced to sixty days in jail for transporting alcoholic beverages in dry territory. He was stopped on a public highway at night by four State Troopers for operating his truck with Tennessee license plates. One of the Troopers had known appellant for fifteen years, but there is no direct evidence that the Troopers-knew the identity of appellant until they stopped his truck. Two of the Troopers testified that the appellant said, in effect, “You might as well go ahead and search (the truck) it is in there,” and when they did search it they found 55 cases of beer and ale and a dozen cases of whisky. .

The appellant: complains that the license violation was used for the purpose of affording the Troopers an excuse for' searching his truck, but he did not deny the improper use of the Tennessee tags. Appellant insists that the discovery of the truck of alcoholic beverages without direct proof that he intended to sell it in dry territory was insufficient to sustain his conviction. ’We have held that officers have a right to search an automobile after making a lawful arrest of the driver. Combs v. Com., 271 Ky. 794, 113 S.W.2d 438; Barnes v. Com., 305 Ky. 481, 204 S.W.2d 801; Commonwealth v. Chaplin, 307 Ky. 630, 211 S.W.2d 841.

 We conclude that the search was legal and that the evidence of the quantity of alcoholic beverage here found being transported in dry territory was itself sufficient for a jury to infer that it was being transported for an illegal purpose .in the absence of convincing proof of an intention to deliver goods to a licensed dealer outside the dry territory.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2911

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Darryl E. Laytham, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 20, 2006 Filed: September 25, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Darryl Laytham pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), and 846, and to being a drug user in possession of a fir earm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court 1 calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 135-168 months, and sentenced Laytham to concurrent terms in prison of 135 months for the drug-conspiracy conviction and 120 months for the firearm conviction, to be followed by concurrent supervisedrelease terms of 5 years and 3 years. For-2- reversal, Laytham argues that the district court erred in enhanc ing his base offense level by two levels under U.S .S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for po ssessing a dangerous weapon in connection with his drug offense. We di sagree, and therefore we affirm Laytham’s sentence. The district court did not clearly err in imposing the enhancement. See United States v. Torres , 409 F.3d 1000, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (s tandard of review). Three firearms, one of which was a pistol, were found in Laytham’s home. The firearms were loaded and accessible, and drugs and paraphernalia used in drug distribution were also found in the home. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment n.3 (adjustment should be applied if weapon was present unless it is clearly improbable that weapon was connected with offense); United States v. Lopez , 416 F.3d 713, 716 (8th Cir. 2005) (likelihood of connection betw een drug offense and guns is increased by fact that gun at issue is pistol, which is type of gun rec ognized as particularly likely to be used in drug trade; further, loaded firearm imp lies probability of connection between drug offense and firearm); United States v. Betz , 82 F.3d 205, 211 (8th Cir. 1996) (weaponpossession enhancement upheld where firear ms were found on premises from which drug activities were conducted).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
UNITED STATES
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549

                                   FORM 8-K
                                CURRENT REPORT
  Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                       Date of Report April 30, 1998

                            SBI Communications, Inc
           (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 ..........................................................................

         Delaware                  0-28416             58-1700840
(State or other jurisdiction     (Commission          (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)           File Number)        Identification)

        103 Firetower Road -P.O. Box 729 - Leesburg, Georgia 31763
             (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

                                (912) 759-9176
              Registrant's telephone number, including area code
 ..........................................................................

   A change of address for the Company to be effective April 30, 1998
                          The new address:
                       SBI Communications, Inc.
                            P. O. Box 729
                         103 Firetower Road
                       Leesburg, Georgia  31763
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 IMPRESO, INC. CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Marshall D. Sorokwasz, Chief Executive Officer and
President of IMPRESO, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
February 29, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and  2.
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.  3.
    
    Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Companys Form 10-Q is
incorporated herein by reference. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 14th day of April, 2003. /s/ Marshall D. Sorokwasz
Name: Marshall D. Sorokwasz
Title: Chief Executive Officer and President *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-11139,333-57643, 333-57641, 333-85247, 333-48672, 333-48670, 333-67158, 333-100541, 333-107019, 333-117498 and 333-119776) of our report dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Boston CommunicationsGroup, Inc., Boston Communications Group, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Boston Communications Group, Inc.,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 10, 2005
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

s0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138559

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138559 COA: 286858 Oakland CC: 1999-168565-FH JERMAINE LAMONT SHUMATE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 11, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
VI

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 566

For the relief of Richard M. Sakakida.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 15, 1995

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

For the relief of Richard M. Sakakida.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD.

4 (a) AUTHORITY.—Upon a determination that it is ap5 propriate to do so, the President is authorized and re6 quested to award a medal of honor, distinguished-service

7 cross, or silver star to Richard M. Sakakida of Fremont,

8 California, for action by the said Richard M. Sakakida in

9 the Philippines during World War II.

10 (b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE

11 ARMY.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the en12 actment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall—
2

•S 566 IS

1 (1) review the military records of Richard M.

2 Sakakida; and

3 (2) on the basis of the review, submit to the

4 President a recommendation on the appropriateness

5 of granting Richard M. Sakakida an award in ac6 cordance with subsection (a).

7 (c) APPLICABILITY OF STANDARDS AND LIMITA8 TIONS.—(1) In making a recommendation under sub9 section (b), the Secretary of the Army shall apply sections

10 3741, 3742, and 3746 of title 10, United States Code,

11 and the standards and, except as provided in paragraph

12 (2), the limitations prescribed for the administration of

13 such provisions of law.

14 (2) The limitations under section 3744(b) of title 10,

15 United States Code, shall not apply to an award author16 ized under subsection (a).

Æ
Exhibit 10.28.7



CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR CERTAIN REDACTED PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE REDACTED PROVISIONS ARE IDENTIFIED BY THREE
ASTERISKS ENCLOSED BY BRACKETS AND UNDERLINED. THE CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.



LOGO



401 North Tryon Street, Fifth Floor

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202



Date: June 28, 2004



To: [***]*



Re: [***]*



Dear [***]*:



As you know, on December 30, 2003, we executed Amendment No. 6 to our
Services Agreement (Amendment 6), which required us to implement certain changes and [***]* relating to [***]*. This letter will confirm completion of these required changes and [***]*.



Specifically, Section 2 a. of Amendment 6 states that:



(i) [***]*



The [***]*, in Schedule B remains at the Target of [***]*. As
of today: (i) the Parties have agreed on changes to the measure definition of what will be included in the [***]* to ensure it measures the [***]* performance.



The wording for the measure definition to [***]* shall read as follows: [***]*



With these changes and results, together the Service Provider has
accomplished the requirements of Section 2 a. of Amendment 6 and can now move beyond the [***]*.



Several initiatives drove the [***]*.



[***]*



In summary, these actions have enabled us to [***]*.



To confirm Clients agreement that the Service Provider has accomplished the criteria we established in Section 2 a. of Amendment 6 as outlined in
this letter, and that this letter accurately reflects the Clients agreement with the proposed changes and [***]* described in this letter for [***]*and [***]* respectively, please sign where indicated below and return one
signed copy.



Very Truly Yours,EXULT, INC.Mike Salvino




---

Agreed:



THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA



|       |  |           
|------ |  | ----------
|By:    |  |           
|Name:  |  |           
|Title: |  |           
|Date:  |  | June, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (3,000)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (0)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 532 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 31
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 532

     To clarify the rules governing venue, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 10 (legislative day, March 6), 1995

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             March 16, 1995

                Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To clarify the rules governing venue, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. VENUE.

    Paragraph (3) of section 1391(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``the defendants are'' and inserting ``any 
defendant is''.
                                                        Calendar No. 31

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 532

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To clarify the rules governing venue, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 16, 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```