alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3.2 Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation


                       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 earliest event reported: September 20, 2001


                          Stockgroup.Com Holdings, Inc.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


         Colorado                   000-23687                 84-1379282
 (State of Incorporation)   (Commission File Number)   (IRS Identification No.)


      500-750 W. Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 2T7
               (Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)


                                 (604) 331-0995
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


                                       57
<PAGE>

                    INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT

Item 5. OTHER EVENTS

Name Change

Effective September 20, 2001, the corporation's name was changed from
Stockgroup.com Holdings, Inc. to Stockgroup Information Systems Inc. (the
"Corporation"). The change in name was effected in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Colorado Business Corporation Act.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                      Stockgroup Information Systems Inc.
                                             (Registrant)

Dated: October 11, 2001               By: /s/ Lindsay Moyle
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Lindsay Moyle, Chief Financial Officer


                                       58
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00187

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF M.A.A.,

From the 436th District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020JUV01099A

Honorable Lisa Jarrett , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due by June 15, 2022 and was not filed. On June 22, 2022, this court notified appellant’s attorney, Patrick B. Montgomery, of the deficiency by letter. In our letter, we instructed Mr. Montgomery to file a written response stating a reasonable explanation for the delay within ten days. Our letter s tated that if we did not receive an adequate response, we would abate this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing and may initiate contempt proceedings. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2), (b)(4). As of the date of this order,

we have not receive d the brief, a motion for extension of time to file the brief, or the response required by our June 22 letter.

We therefore ORDER Patrick B. Montgomery to file appellant’s brief by July 18, 2022

. If neither the brief nor an extension of time to file the brief is filed by the date ordered, we will abate this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing without further notice, and the trial court will be asked to consider whether sanctions are appropriate. See id.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of July, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
United States District Court

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:22-CR-179-S

§

ANGEL MANUEL FUENTES-MELENDEZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ANGEL MANUEL FUENTES-MELENDEZ (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 

261 (5th Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of 

the Indictment, filed May 3, 2022. After cautioning and examining ANGEL MANUEL FUENTES-MELENDEZ (1)

under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and 

voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements 

of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that ANGEL MANUEL FUENTESMELENDEZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. § 846, Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute a Schedule II

Controlled Substance and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District 

Judge: 

☐ The Defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

☐ The Defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The Defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The Defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The Defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless: (1)(a) the Court finds there is 

a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the Defendant should not be detained; and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released. 

SIGNED May 16, 2023. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). 

Case 3:22-cr-00179-S Document 35 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 72
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRAYLON RAY COULTER, §

#202200383, §

 §

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-CV-0921-M-BK

§

CAPTAIN GORDY, §

§

Respondent.1 §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed. The court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the court ACCEPTS the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2022.

1

 The habeas petition named Captain Gordy as the Respondent not the United States as noted in 

the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.

Case 3:22-cv-00921-M-BK Document 11 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 46
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|North Dakota Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|North Dakota Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 2,800  | 2,800  | 2,800  | 2,800  | 3,000  | 3,000  | 3,400  | 3,400 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 3,400  | 4,300  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,800  | 4,800  | NA     | 5,600  | NA     | 5,600 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5,600  | 5,600  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,400  | 4,830  | 4,830  | 4,830  | 4,800 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,800  | 4,800  | 5,000  | 5,000  | 5,500  |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
#### Elton’s Estate.

*Decedents’ estates*— Trusts *and trustees*— Vacancies — *Appointment of trustee.*

A petition for the appointment of a trustee is properly dismissed where no vacancy is found to exist in such office.

*492Argued Jan. 12,1916.

Appeal, No. 154, Jan. T., 1915, by Ella E. Meurer, from decree of O. C. Philadelphia Co., Jan. T., 1886, No. 215, dismissing petition for appointment of a trustee in case of Estate of Anthony Elton, Deceased.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Stewart, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for the appointment of a trustee. Before Gummey, J.

The court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed.

*Error assigned*was in dismissing the petition.

*William, Gorman,*with him *Joseph Savidge, Leo. J. Gorman*and *John F. Gorman,*for appellant.

*Owen B. Jenlcins,*for appellee.

March 6, 1916:

Per Curiam,

The petition of the appellant for the appointment of a trustee in the estate of her deceased father was dismissed by the learned court below for the very good reason that no vacancy existed in the office of trustee in his estate.

Appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,266,922
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,389,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                   643,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,525,627
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,628,001
<PP&E>                                      18,901,673
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,838,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,048,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,395,673
<BONDS>                                     14,478,317
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,074
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,200,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,048,874
<SALES>                                     25,410,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,410,114
<CGS>                                       19,964,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,035,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (54,854)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             916,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                512,924
<INCOME-TAX>                                   210,329
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            302,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   302,535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# FILED
March 25, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSE E

AT KNOXVILLE JANUARY 1998 SESSION

NELSON B. GRAVES, ) ) Appellant, ) No. 01C01-9705-CR-00171

) ) Johnson County v. ) ) Honorable Lynn W. Brown, Judge ) HOWARD CARLTON, W ARDEN,) (Habeas Corpus) and STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the results an d most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I would hold, though, that the indi ctments sufficiently c ontain any necessary mens r ea by allegations that the offenses were “feloniously” committed. Historically, the word “feloniously” has meant “[p]roceeding from an evi l heart or purpose; done wi th a deliberate intention of committing a crime.” Black’s Law Dictionary 617 (6th ed. 1990). As our supreme court has pr eviously noted, “one meaning attached to the word is: ‘In a legal sense, done with the intent to commit a crime.’” State v. Smith , 119 Tenn. 521, 526, 105 S.W. 68, 70 (1907). Th us, I believe that the indic tments include any requir ed
mens rea.

____________________________ Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (E)

*

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

PLAINTIFF’S CONSENT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO 

AUTHORIZE HIS COUNSEL TO ACCESS HIS INTENDED EVIDENCE

Plaintiff Robert Hopkins, III (“Hopkins”) commenced this litigation against 

the Department of Defense (“DOD”) in March 2022 to challenge the 

unconstitutional prior restraint imposed upon him with respect to manuscripts that 

he properly submitted for prepublication review between December 2020 and 

January 2022. On 12 February 2024, Hopkins filed a motion asking the Court to 

authorize his undersigned counsel to access a specific piece of evidence that he 

intends to file in opposition to DOD’s dispositive motion. Hopkins now 

respectfully requests that his deadline for filing his reply to this motion be 

extended by 1 week until 25 March 2024. This filing is currently due 18 March

2024.

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 44 Filed 03/12/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 989
2

Hopkins has good cause to request this relief. On 21 February, the 

Department of Justice informed the undersigned that it had scheduled an 

administrative hearing regarding another client’s security clearance appeal for 18 

March. The undersigned will need to spend a significant amount of time preparing 

his client for this hearing, as well as participating in the actual hearing itself, and 

will not be able to dedicate sufficient time to this brief as it warrants. Because this 

hearing was scheduled after the briefing of Hopkins’s motion for access had 

commenced and was beyond the undersigned’s control, the undersigned’s need to 

devote time and resources to it at the expense of this filing constitutes good cause 

for an enlargement of this deadline, especially for such a short period of time.

DOD consents to this Motion. A proposed Order has been included with this 

Motion.

Date: March 12, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly B. McClanahan 

Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.

N.D. Tex. Bar #984704DC

National Security Counselors

4702 Levada Terrace

Rockville, MD 20853

301-728-5908

240-681-2189 fax

Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 44 Filed 03/12/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 990
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60250 

Conference Calendar

__________________

CHRISTOPHER REGULAR,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

EDWARD HARGETT, SUPERINTENDENT,

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY;

EDDIE LUCAS; COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MIKE MOORE,

 Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CV-262-D-0

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Christopher Regular, a Mississippi state inmate convicted of

manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, appeals

the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his petition for

habeas corpus. Regular's direct criminal appeal is still pending

before the Mississippi Supreme Court. His federal habeas

petition challenges, not his conviction, but the Mississippi

state courts' determination regarding his bail on appeal. He
No. 95-60250

-2-

argues that the state courts acted arbitrarily and unreasonably

in setting bail pending appeal in the amount of $75,000. 

 There is no absolute federal constitutional right to bail

pending appeal; however, once a state makes provisions for bail,

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it not be

denied arbitrarily or unreasonably. Young v. Hubbard, 673 F.2d

132, 134 (5th Cir. 1982). In light of the seriousness of

Regular's offense and the length of his sentence, bail of $75,000

was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and thus, was not

unconstitutional. See id. 

 Regular argues for the first time on appeal that, because he

was rendered a pauper by being required to post a $100,000 bond

prior to trial, a $75,000 appeal bond is tantamount to no bond at

all. "[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not

reviewable by this court unless they involve purely legal

questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest

injustice." Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.

1991). We decline to consider this argument because even a

complete denial of bond would not have been constitutionally

impermissible in this case. See, e.g., Young, 673 F.2d 134. 

 Regular's argument that the district court was required to

hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing his petition is

equally unavailing. An evidentiary hearing is required only if

the petitioner did not receive a full and fair state-court

hearing and there are disputed issues of fact. Townsend v. Sain,

372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted), Wayne Wetherell Chief Financial Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc.(the ***“Company”***),hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               The Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2006 (the ***“Report”***) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the periods covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 

Dated:  May 22, 2006

 

 
| /s/  Wayne Wetherell                      |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Wayne  Wetherell  Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to ImageWare Systems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWareSystems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (C)

*

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION OF Defendant’s Cross-Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, 

any Opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, it is this _______ day of __________, 2023, 

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

_______________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-5 Filed 06/01/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 424 Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 22-4 Filed 06/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 436