alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.5



CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENTOF 
THE
RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF

INSITE VISION INCORPORATED
a Delaware Corporation


          INSITE
VISION INCORPORATED, a corporation organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”) DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT: 


          ONE:  
The amendment to the Corporation’s Restated Certificate of Incorporation
set forth below was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware by the directors and
stockholders of the Corporation. 


          TWO:  
The first paragraph of Section A of ARTICLE IV of the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


               "(A)  Classes of Stock.  The total  number of shares of all classes of
     capital stock which the  corporation  shall have  authority to issue is One
     Hundred  Twenty-Five  Million  (125,000,000)  of which One  Hundred  Twenty
     Million (120,000,000) shares, par value of $0.01 per share, shall be Common
     Stock (the "Common Stock") and Five Million  (5,000,000)  shares, par value
     of $0.01 per share, shall be Preferred Stock ("Preferred Stock")."


          IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Corporation  has  caused  this  Certificate  of
Amendment to be executed by S. Kumar Chandrasekaran,  Ph.D., its Chief Executive
Officer, and attested by Lyle M. Bowman,  Ph.D., its Secretary,  on this 1st day
of June, 2004.




	 	 	 	INSITE VISION INCORPORATED


	 	 	 	By:    /s/ S. Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.
Name:    S. Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.
Title:    Chief Executive Officer


	 	 	 	 


	 	 	 	Attest:    /s/ Lyle M. Bowman, Ph.D.
Name:    Lyle M. Bowman, Ph.D.
Title:    Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1429 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1429

    To provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 7, 2011

    Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Connolly of Virginia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employee Retroactive Pay 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FURLOUGHED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    Federal employees furloughed as a result of any lapse in 
appropriations which begins on or about April 9, 2011, shall be 
compensated at their standard rate of compensation, for the period of 
such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after such lapse 
in appropriations ends.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         660,143
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  292,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               952,669
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 952,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,506
<OTHER-SE>                                     945,163<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   952,669
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               445,130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                356,949
<INCOME-TAX>                                   207,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                149,949
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   149,949
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<FN>
<F1>Additional paid-in capital and retained earnings.
</FN>






</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50641 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. RODRICK LIGHTEARD Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-718-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodrick Lighteard pleaded guilty to possession of more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Lighteard was sentenced to concurrent imprisonment terms of 188 months on his drug conviction and 120 months on his firearm conviction. He appeals his firearm conviction. Lighteard challenges his firearm conviction on the ground that the factual basis supporting his plea did not establish thatNo. 06-50641 -2- the firearm he possessed had traveled in or affected interstate commerce. Because Lighteard did not challenge the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district court, this court reviews the issue for plain error. See United States v. Castro-Trevino , 464 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2006). The record contains no indication that Lighteard ever took issue with whether the firearm had traveled in or affected interstate commerce, and Lighteard does not argue that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the district court’s error, thus waiving any such argument. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004); United States v. Edwards , 303 F.3d 606, 647 (5th Cir. 2002). As such, Lighteard has failed to make the requisite showing. See Castro-Trevino , 464 F.3d at 544. Lighteard also argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it does not require a substantial affect on interstate commerce, relying on Jones v. United States , 529 U.S. 848 (2000), United States v. Morrison , 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four

Corners Power Plant; Navajo Nation; Extension of Notification Deadline

Proposed Rule

EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0498

Docket Index as of June 26, 2013

Item Number Document Name

1 Pre‐Publication Signed version to Propose Extension of FCPP Notification Deadline

2 Docket Index (as of June 26, 2013)

3 2012_1231 Letter from APS to EPA

4 2013_0523 PDF from ACC website Retail Competition Docket Letter

5 2013_0619 Letter from APS to EPA
Order entered October 7 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00076

- CR

RONNIE BUSH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicia l District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18

- 75228

- R



### O RDER

Before the Court is the State’s October 3, 2019 second motion for extension of time to

file its brief. The State has tendered its brief with the motion. We GRANT the motion a nd

ORDER the State’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1


                       Wings & Things, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Wings & Things, Inc. (the "Company")
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

a.     the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
       ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.     the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.



Date: August 5, 2005
                                   /s/ Linda L. Perry
                                   ____________________________________
                                   Linda L. Perry
                                   Principal Executive officer
                                   Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1  IDI Global, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  In connection with the Quarterly Report of IDI Global, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kevin R. Griffith, Chief Executive Officer, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:   1. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, 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 Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: December 19, 2008  /s/ Kevin R. Griffith Kevin R. Griffith Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer)
#### RITA PACHECO *v.*HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF WILLIMANTIC ET AL.

(13918)

Heiman, Spear and Hennessy, Js.

Argued December 4, 1995

decision released January 9, 1996

*Gary R. Atkinson,*with whom, on the brief, was *Anthony J. Palermino,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Jeffrey F. Gostyla,*with whom, on the brief, was *Edward T. Lynch, Jr.,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case No. ____________________

CHRISTOPHER LYNN VUICICH § COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

§

Appellant, §

§

VS. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS §

§

Appellee

. § AUSTIN, TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, CHRISTPHER LYNN VUICICH , Appellant and files this

motion for extension of time in which to file Appellant’s Petiti on for Discretionary

Review and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:

1. This is a request for extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review

related to a judgment issued by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Distri ct in

Eastland. The case number in the Court of Appeals is 11

- 13

- 00380

- CR.

2. This is an a ppeal from a judgment in the 90 th Judicial District Court.

3. The style of the case in the trial court was State of T exas v. CHRISTOPHER

LYNN VUICICH, Cause No. F3401 1, 90 th Judicial District Court, Stephens County.

3. J udgment was entered on December 19 th , 2013

.

4. Appellant filed his n otice of appeal on December 26 th , 2013

.

5. Eleventh Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the judgme nt of the trial

court on A pril 23 rd , 2015

.

6. The current deadline for Appellant to file a petition for discretionary review i s

May 26th, 2015

. PD-0603-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 5/21/2015 2:27:41 PM

Accepted 5/22/2015 11:09:07 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK5. Appellant is considering filing a petition for discretionary review and requests

additional time for counsel to review the issues relat ed to his appeal. He has requested an

additional 45 days to make a final decision and possibly retain other counsel.

Wherefore, Appellant prays that the Court enter its order extending the deadline

for the filing of Appellant’s Petition fo r Discretionary Review to July 10 th , 2015 and for

such other and further relief to which he may justly be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Russell W. King

Russell W. King

State Bar No. 11463400

King Law Offices, P.C.

P.O. Box 772

Stephenville, Texas 76401

817

- 357

- 4039

866

- 218

- 1049 Facsimile

rking2010@gmail.com

Certificate of Conference

The undersigned does hereby certify that he unable to contact counsel for the state

prior to the filing on this motion and therefore cannot represent whether or not counsel

for the State agree with the granting of the relief re quested

.

/s/ Russell W. King

Russell W. King

Certificate of Service

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of this motion was

served on the District Attorney for Stephens County, Texas via facsimile. on May 21 st

, 2 015

.

/s/ Russell W. Ki ng Russell W. King
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 23, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 23, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0251. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY v. COREVEST AMERICAN 

FINANCE LENDER LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2019CV326885
Exhibit 24.1

		    POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose
signature appears below constitutes and appoints Henry C. Pao,
his attorney-in-fact, with the power of substitution, for him in
any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this report on
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do
or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Signature                 Title                                   Date

/s/ Henry C. Pao          President, Principal Executive and      June 4, 1997
-----------------------   Financial Officer and Director
(Henry C. Pao)

/s/ Richard E. Siegel     Executive Vice President and Director   June 4, 1997
-----------------------
(Richard E. Siegel)     

/s/ Benedict C. K. Choy   Senior Vice President and Director      June 4, 1997
-----------------------
(Benedict C. K. Choy)

/s/ Yunni Pao             Director                                June 4, 1997
-----------------------
(Yunni Pao)

/s/ Frank C. Pao          Director                                June 4, 1997
-----------------------
(Frank C. Pao)
November 1, 2012

Honorable Dr. Steven Chu

Secretary of Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Secretary Chu:

We are writing to thank you for adjusting DOE’s rulemaking schedule for set top boxes to allow time for 

negotiations on a potential voluntary agreement among stakeholders. Over the past several months, 

the parties have met repeatedly and exchanged a range of proposals. We were not able to reach 

agreement by our self-imposed deadline of October 1, but extended discussions in an attempt to get an 

agreement. Unfortunately, despite intensive, good-faith efforts, the parties were not able to reach a 

consensus and the undersigned Advocates have now terminated negotiations. 

Even though we were not successful in reaching a consensus agreement, DOE’s pause in the regulatory 

process provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to become better informed about the 

opportunities and constraints with respect to set top box energy efficiency improvements. We thank 

you for providing us the opportunity to pursue a negotiated outcome. All of us will continue to be 

actively engaged in our own significant efforts to achieve greater energy efficiency in set-top boxes.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Noah Horowitz

Andrew deLaski Noah Horowitz

Executive Director Senior Scientist

Appliance Standards Awareness Project Natural Resources Defense Council

/s/ Neal Goldberg /s/ Doug Johnson

Neal Goldberg Doug Johnson

Vice President & General Counsel Vice President, Technology Policy

National Cable & Telecommunications Association Consumer Electronics Association

Cc: Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Roland Risser, John Cymbalsky, Jeremy Dommu
Docket No. FAA- 2010--13 i2-

Record of Ex Parte Contacts

2-c ID--/VM-.;2=---t1)

Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has tbis AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder,

manufacturer. ATA. NBAA, RAA. AOPA, ALPA. GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate

record 10 the Rules Docket. The AD Manuol defines "Ex Parte Contacts 'J'-

ORGANIZA nON PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE

ATA Joe White 9-20-2010 No response.

Othcr/Additionallnfonnation:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2096
KAZEEM ISHOLA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-534-825) Submitted: May 7, 2007 Decided: May 15, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kazeem Ishola, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kazeem Ishola, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s affirmance of the IJ’s order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 475, 481, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review, and deny as moot Ishola’s motions to suspend the briefing order and for a stay of deportation. We grant Ishola leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Ex parte William L. BURNETT.

No. 27424.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1955.

No attorney on appeal.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Dallas County remanding relator to custody after a hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding.

No statement of facts is brought forward. The record before us shows that relator is legally restrained by the sheriff of Dallas County.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1884 

To designate additional segments and tributaries of White Clay Creek, in 

the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania, as a component of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. PITTS (for himself and Mr. CARNEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate additional segments and tributaries of White 

Clay Creek, in the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania, 

as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

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 ‘‘White Clay Creek Wild 

5 and Scenic River Expansion Act of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1884 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SEGMENTS OF WHITE CLAY 

2 CREEK, AS SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIV3 ERS. 

4 Section 3(a)(163) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

5 (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(163)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘190 miles’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘199 miles’’; and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘the recommended designa10 tion and classification maps (dated June 

11 2000)’’ and inserting ‘‘the map entitled ‘White 

12 Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River Designated 

13 Area Map’ and dated July 2008, the map enti14 tled ‘White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River 

15 Classification Map’ and dated July 2008, and 

16 the map entitled ‘White Clay Creek National 

17 Wild and Scenic River Proposed Additional 

18 Designated Segments—July 2008’ ’’; 

19 (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

20 the following: 

21 ‘‘(B) 22.4 miles of the east branch begin22 ning at the southern boundary line of the Bor23 ough of Avondale, including Walnut Run, 

24 Broad Run, and Egypt Run, outside the bound25 aries of the White Clay Creek Preserve, as a 

26 recreational river.’’; and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1884 IH

1 (3) by striking subparagraph (H) and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(H) 14.3 miles of the main stem, includ4 ing Lamborn Run, that flow through the 

5 boundaries of the White Clay Creek Preserve, 

6 Pennsylvania and Delaware, and White Clay 

7 Creek State Park, Delaware, beginning at the 

8 confluence of the east and middle branches in 

9 London Britain Township, Pennsylvania, down10 stream to the northern boundary line of the 

11 City of Newark, Delaware, as a scenic river.’’. 

12 SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF WHITE CLAY CREEK. 

13 Sections 4 through 8 of Public Law 106–357 (16 

14 U.S.C. 1274 note; 114 Stat. 1393), shall be applicable to 

15 the additional segments of the White Clay Creek des16 ignated by the amendments made by section 2. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with Environmental Group Representatives

DATE: Tuesday, November 5, 2013

TIME: 4:00 – 5:00 PM

Participants:

EPA – Sara Hisel-McCoy, Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Janita Aguirre, Heather

Goss

Environmental Group Representatives – Albert Ettinger, Merritt Frey, Judy Peterson, Brad

Kline, Betsy Lauten, Kris Sigford

Summary of Meeting: Participants provided input and reactions on the contents of the proposed

rule.