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



Exhibit 3.5
 RESTATED BYLAWS
OF
STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
 AS AMENDED THROUGH JUNE 1, 2005
 ARTICLE I
 OFFICES
 Business Offices
 Registered Office
 ARTICLE II
 STOCKHOLDERS
 Annual Meeting
 Special Meetings




---



##### 



Place of Meeting
 Fixing Date for Determination of Stockholders of Record
 Notice of Meeting
 Voting Lists
 2




---



##### 



Quorum
 Voting of Shares
 Voting of Shares by Certain Holders
 3




---



##### 



Conduct of Meetings
      Notice of Stockholder Business
 4




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 General Powers
 Number, Tenure, Qualifications and Nomination
   5




---



##### 



Vacancies
 6




---



##### 



Regular Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Organization
 Notice
 7




---



##### 



Quorum and Voting
 Committees
 Compensation
 ARTICLE IV
 OFFICERS AND AGENTS
 Enumeration
 8




---



##### 



Election and Term of Office
 Salaries
 Removal
 Vacancies
 Authority and Duties of Officers
  9




---



##### 



Surety Bonds
 ARTICLE V
 STOCK
 Issuance of Shares
 10




---



##### 



Certificates
 Payment for Shares
 Lost Certificates
 Transfer of Shares
 11




---



##### 



Registered Stockholders
 Transfer Agents, Registrars and Paying Agents
 ARTICLE VI
 MISCELLANEOUS
 Waivers of Notice
 Presumption of Assent
 Voting of Securities by the Corporation
 12




---



##### 



Fiscal Year
 Audits of Books and Accounts
 Emergency Bylaws
 Amendments
 ARTICLE VII
 INDEMNIFICATION
 Section 1. Right to Indemnification .
 (a)
    
    Each person (an Indemnitee) who:
 (i)
    
    was or is made a party or is threatened to be made a party or is otherwise involved
(including as a witness or a deponent) in any threatened, pending or completed action,
lawsuit, arbitration, alternative dispute resolution mechanism, appeal, investigation
(including, but not limited to, any internal corporate investigation) or other
proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, investigative or corporate
(hereinafter a Proceeding);
 13




---



##### 



(ii)
    
    by reason of the fact that he or she is or was a director or officer of the
corporation or is or was serving at the request of the corporation as a director,
officer, employee or agent of another corporation or of a partnership, joint venture,
trust or other enterprise, including service with respect to an employee benefit plan,
whether the basis of such Proceeding is alleged action in an official capacity as a
director, officer, employee or agent or in any other capacity while serving as a
director, officer, employee or agent,
     14




---



##### 



Section 2. Right to Payment of Expenses Prior to Final Disposition .
 15




---



##### 



Section 3. Request for Indemnification .
 Section 4. Determination of Indemnification .
     16




---



##### 



17




---



##### 



Section 5. Right of Indemnitee to Bring Suit; Certain Presumptions .
  18




---



##### 



nolo contendere
 19




---



##### 



Section 6. Non-Exclusivity of Rights .
 Section 7. Insurance .
 Section 8. Contractual Rights; Applicability
 20




---



##### 



Section 9. Requested Service
 21
# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 13-5281 September Term, 2013 1: 13-c v -010 33-KBJ Filed O n: April 4, 201 4 Am erican Meat Institu te, et a l.,

App ellant s
v . United Sta tes De partm entof Agriculture, e t al., App ellees BEFORE: Garlan d, Ch ief Jud ge, an d Hen derso n, Ro gers, Ta tel, B row n, Grif f ith, K avanau gh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, a nd W ilkins, Circuit Judges O R D E R T he pan el in t his case ha v ing sugg este d th at t he case be rehe ard e n b anc, see Am erican Meat Institu te v. Dep’ t of Agriculture , No. 13-5 281 , Slip Op. at 1 4, n .1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 28, 20 14), a vote was take n a nd a m ajority of the judges e lig ible to pa rticipate v ote d to rehe ar th e ca se e n b anc. In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED tha t th is case w ill be reh eard by the court sitting en ban c. Itis FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e jud gmen t f iled March 28, 20 14, be vacated . Itis FURTHER ORDERED tha t ora l argume nt b efore t he en ban c cou rt be he ard a t 9:3 0 a .m . on Mond ay, May 19 , 20 14. It is FURTHER ORDERED tha t, b y 4:0 0 p .m . on Ap ril 18, 2 014 , th e p arties a nd am ici ref ile ea ch b rief

an d th e a ppe ndix initially f iled in this ca se. It is FURTHER ORDERED tha t, b y 4:0 0 p .m . on Ap ril 21, 2 014 , th e p arties f ile simu ltane ous supp lem ent al briefs, no t to exceed 7,5 00 words e ach, ad dressing th e followi ng issue: W het her, und er th e First Am end me nt, judicial review of m and ato ry

disclosu re of "p urely fa ctua l and un cont rov ersial" co mm ercial informa tion, com pelled for reaso ns oth er th an preventing de cept ion, can prop erly proce ed und er Zauderer v. O ffice o f Disciplinary Coun sel , 47 1 U.S . 62 6, 6 51 (198 5), o r w het her su ch co mp elled disclosure is subje ct to revi ew unde r Centra l Hudso n Ga s & E lectric v. PS C of Ne w York, 44 7 U.S

. 56 (198 0).

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 13-5281 September Term, 2013

In a dditio n to the elect ronic f iling, 30 p ape r copie s of ea ch o f the briefs, supp lem ent al briefs, an d a ppe ndix mu st be ha nd-d eliv ered to the cou rt by the time an d dat e d ue. Beca use the brief ing sched ule is ke yed to t he dat e o f argume nt, the cou rt w ill grantrequests for extensio n o f tim e lim its on ly

for extraordina rily

com pelling reaso ns. T he briefs, sup plem ent al briefs, an d a ppe ndix mu st con tain the da te t hatthe case is sched uled for oral a rg um entat the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 2 8(a)(8). A se para te o rder wi ll issue regarding alloca tion of oral a rg um enttim e. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
#### NELSON v. STATE.

No. 25985.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1952.

Truman Warren,. Tyler, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for the crime of abortion; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The statement of facts before us bears neither the approval of counsel for the state and for the appellant, nor .that of the trial court. The court reporter, alone, certifies to the correctness of the facts therein set forth.

Such a statement of facts does not meet the requirements of Art. 759a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and is not entitled to be considered.

Without a. statement of facts, the bills of exception appearing in the record cannot be appraised.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

*307On Motion for Rehearing

MORRISON, Judge.

At a previous day of this term, we affirmed this cause, because the statement of facts was not entitled to be considered.

Appellant has attempted to cure this defect by supplying this Court with affidavits from the trial court, the prosecuting attorney, and his attorney.

We have carefully considered the same, together with able counsel’s brief, but remain convinced that sufficient diligence on the part of appellant and his counsel has not been shown to warrant a consideration thereof. This is not a case where the omission was an oversight of the trial court as is found in the cases cited by appellant.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Exhibit 32  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 The Standard Register Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. Rediker, President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, Craig J. Brown, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, 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 our 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.   Date: November 1, 2006   /S/DENNIS L. REDIKER Dennis L. Rediker President and Chief Executive Officer   /S/ CRAIG J. BROWN Craig J. Brown Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 198 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-374-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., Notice of Technical Conference

October 5, 2000
    In the Commission's order issued on August 23, 2000,\1\ the 
Commission directed that a technical conference be held to address 
issues raised by the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 92 FERC 61,173 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A technical conference was held on Thursday, September 14, 2000. At 
that conference the parties indicated that another conference is 
warranted.
    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Tuesday, 
October 17, 2000, at 10 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26127 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 5 of 5
#### STEPHENSON v. STATE.

No. 24201.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1949.

J. O. Duncan, of Gilmer, and Anglin & Jones and Mike Anglin, all of Longview, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for robbery, with a penalty of five years in the penitentiary.

The appellant, Leon Childress, Martin Doss, Jr., Nadine Yohn, a sister to Doss, and Ruby Stephenson, the wife of appellant, together with one Minter, the injured party, had been together in an automobile in Gregg County where they had visited drinking places until a late hour at night. While' returning to their homes and after they crossed the line into Upshur County, it is alleged that the appellant slugged and robbed Minter of a sum of money and left him by the side of the road.

The only direct evidence in the case connecting appellant with the offense was that given by Leon Childress, an accomplice, and by Nadine Yohn. When the charge was submitted to the jury by the court, they were instructed that Childress was an accomplice as a matter of law, but the court declined to instruct that the witness Nadine Yohn was an accomplice and submitted that as a fact issue to be found by the jury. We are asked to reverse the case because of the court’s failure to instruct the jury that Nadine Yohn was also an accomplice witness as a matter of law. Reliance is had upon the facts, as fully set out by the bills, that after the robbery was committed appellant secured from the purse of the injured party $23; that he gave a part of it to Childress and used another part to pay an indebtedness of $7 to Nadine Yohn. She accepted this money with the full knowledge, at the time, that it was the fruits of the robbery. Her testimony was in accord with that of the accomplice Childress, and there is no evidence to corroborate her statement but that of Chil-dress. Under the admitted facts of the case, Nadine Yohn was an accomplice wit*587ness and the exception to the court’s charge must be sustained. See Walker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 37 S.W., 423; Johnson v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 244, 125 S.W. 16; Newton v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 261, 253 S.W. 284; Garza v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 69 S.W.2d 110; and Hancock v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 568, 150 S.W.2d 385.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K DATED
DECEMBER 27, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<CIK> 0000094673
<NAME> STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-27-1996
<CASH>                                       388,401
<SECURITIES>                                  29,176
<RECEIVABLES>                                567,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                  12,907
<INVENTORY>                                  288,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,260,351
<PP&E>                                       829,122
<DEPRECIATION>                               501,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,884,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        536,180
<BONDS>                                      150,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       5,818
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,175,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,884,276
<SALES>                                    1,478,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           2,039,550
<CGS>                                        897,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,192,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             176,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            26,122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              226,692
<INCOME-TAX>                                  55,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          170,792
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                9,535
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 180,327
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   3.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   3.01

        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 5720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2564]



[[Page 5720]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


TSO-C77b, Gas Turbine Auxiliary Power Units

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:  Notice of availability of proposed Technical Standard Order 
and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of draft Technical 
Standard Order (TSO), C77b. This proposed TSO pertains to minimum 
performance standards that gas turbine auxiliary power units (APUs), 
commonly used in commercial aircraft, must meet in order to be 
identified with the proposed TSO marking.

DATES:  Comments must identify the TSO file number and be received on 
or before May 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Send all comments on the proposed TSO to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Attn: Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, 
ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803-5299. 
Comments must identify the TSO file number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Mark A. Rumizen, Engine and 
Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, 
Burlington, MA 01803-5299, telephone (781) 238-7113, fax (781) 238-
7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    A copy of the draft TSO may be obtained by contacting the person 
named under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Interested persons are 
invited to comment on the proposed TSO, and to submit such written 
data, views, or arguments as they desire. Commenters must identify the 
TSO file number, and submit comments to the address specified above. 
All communications received on or before the closing date for comments 
will be considered by the Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, before issuance of the final TSO.

Background

    The standards of this TSO would apply to all APUs used for any new 
application submitted after the effective date of this TSO. APUs 
currently approved under TSO-C77 or TSO-C77a authorization may continue 
to be manufactured under the provisions of their original approval. 
However, under Sec. 21.611(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, any 
major design change to an APU previously approved under TSO-C77 or TSO-
C77a would require a new authorization under this TSO. The general 
layout of this document complies with the updated TSO format.

How To Obtain Copies

    A copy of the proposed TSO-C77b may be obtained via Internet 
(http:/www.faa.gov/avr/air/air100/100home.htm) or on request from the 
office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Burlington, MA on January 7, 2000.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-2564 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 18, 2024

NO. 03

- 22

- 00695

- CV

ACI Design Build Contractors, Inc., d/b/a E3D Architecture and Engineering; E3D LLC; E3D, a Veritas Financial Series LLC; Patrick Towne d/b/a E3D LL C Sustainable Building

Solutions; and E3D Architecture and Engineering , Appellant s

v.

3405 Rainforest Drive, LLC and Michael Gill, Jr. , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINI ON BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the tr i a l court on September 28, 202 2

.

Ha ving reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s final judgment

.

A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in thi s Court and in the court below.
#### L. R. SPIRES, Appellant, v. Mary Lee MANN, Executrix of the Estate of Arthur Mann, Deceased, and Clay Mann, Appellees.

No. 2376.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

June 4, 1943.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1943.

Beall, Beall & Yonge, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

Wilson & Durham, of San Angelo, for appellees.

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

The above styled and numbered cause is-a garnishment suit, ancillary to the case of L. R. Spires, Appellant, v. Mary Lee Mann, Executrix, and Clay Mann, Appellees, No. 2370 on the docket of this Court, 173 S.W.2d 200. Since the judgment of the trial court in said principal cause No. 2370 has. been this day affirmed by an opinion rendered by this court, it follows that the judgment in the garnishment proceeding should likewise be affirmed. 20 Tex.Jur. p. 754, Sec. 45, et seq.

It is accordingly so ordered.
#### CLOWER v. STATE.

No. 25334.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant,

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 10 years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts of bills of exception. In the absence thereof, no question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1967

CHADWICK DAVID MYERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 30321-13L)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chadwick David Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Michael J. Haungs, 

Supervisory Attorney, Marion Elizabeth Erickson, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chadwick David Myers appeals from the tax court’s order

upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s proposed levy 

action with respect to his income tax liability for the tax years 

2003 through 2009, and imposing a penalty against Myers for making 

frivolous arguments, 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (2012). We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the tax court. Myers v. Comm’r of 

Internal Revenue, No. 30321-13L (U.S.T.C. May 28, 2015). We deny 

the Commissioner’s motions to strike Myers’ brief and for 

sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
4126865-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

BRYNNE SOUKUP, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648-RP 

v. ) 

) 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. and ) 

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC, ) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

Considering the foregoing Unopposed Motion to Continue Defendant’s Expert Report 

Deadline; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Defendant’s Expert 

Report Deadline is GRANTED. Defendant Flight Services & Systems, LLC’s deadline to serve 

expert report(s) is extended until July 12, 2021. 

Austin, Texas, this ______ day of ____________, 2021. 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 37-2 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32  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 The Standard Register Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph P. Morgan, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, Robert M. Ginnan, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, 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 our 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.   Date: July 29, 2009   /S/ JOSEPH P. MORGAN, JR. Joseph P. Morgan, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer   /S/ ROBERT M. GINNAN Robert M. Ginnan Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer