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



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

ORION ACQUISITION CORP. II



Pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware (GCL), it is hereby certified that:



1.
The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the corporation) is Orion Acquisition Corp. II. The date of filing the original certificate of incorporation of the corporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware was
October 19, 1995.



2. The certificate of incorporation of the
corporation is hereby amended by deleting Article Eight in its entirety. The remaining Articles Nine through Eleven shall be renumbered as Eight through Ten, respectively.



3. Except as otherwise amended hereby, the provisions of the certificate of incorporation of the corporation are in full
force and effect.



4. The amendment to the certificate of
incorporation has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the GCL, by resolution of the Board of Directors of the corporation and by affirmative vote of the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding stock entitled to
vote thereon at a meeting of stockholders.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned have signed this Certificate of Amendment on this 22nd day of October, 1999.



/s/ Christopher A. MarlettChristopher A. Marlett, Chief Executive Officer




|                                 
|---------------------------------
|ATTEST:                          
|                                 
|/s/ Dyana Williams Marlett       
|Dyana Williams Marlett, Secretary
Director Compensation Table




 

Exhibit
10.5

 

PUGET
ENERGY, INC. & PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.

 

DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE MAY 10, 2005




The
following table provides information on the compensation of Puget Energy, Inc.
and Puget Sound Energy, Inc (the "Company") nonemployee directors. The Company
also reimburses nonemployee directors for the out-of-pocket expenses of
attending meetings. Directors who are employed by the Company do not receive any
compensation for their Board activities.

 




	
       

      DIRECTOR
      COMPENSATION 

	
      Quarterly
      Lead Director retainer
	
      $
      5,000

	
      Quarterly
      Board Member retainer(1)
	
      15,000

	
      Additional
      quarterly retainer for Audit Committee Chair
	
      2,500

	
      Additional
      quarterly retainer for Audit Committee Members
	
      1,000

	
      Additional
      quarterly retainer for Compensation and Leadership Development Committee
      Chair
	
      2,000

	
      Additional
      quarterly retainer for Governance and Public Affairs Committee Chair
      
	
      1,500

	
      Additional
      quarterly retainer for Finance and Budget Committee Chair
	
      1,500
      

	
      Additional
      quarterly retainer for Systems Integrity Committee Chair
	
      1,500
      

	
      Fee
      for each Board and Committee meeting attended
	
      1,250

	
      Fee
      for each telephonic meeting attended lasting 60 minutes or less
      
	
      625








 

 

__________________________

 


	(1)  	
      100%
      of the quarterly retainer fee is paid in the form of Puget Energy shares
      until a director owns a number of Puget Energy shares equal in value to
      two years of retainer fees. After meeting this ownership requirement,
      under the terms of the Nonemployee Director Plan as currently in effect, a
      portion of the quarterly retainer payable to a director for a fiscal
      quarter is payable in a number of shares of Puget Energy stock determined
      by dividing two-thirds of the quarterly retainer payable by the fair
      market value of Puget Energy’s common stock on the last business day of
      that fiscal quarter.




 

A
nonemployee director may elect to receive up to 100% of the quarterly retainer
in Puget Energy shares and may elect to defer the issuance of shares as
compensation under the Nonemployee Director Plan in accordance with the terms of
the plan.




In
addition to the compensation listed in the table above, the Company's
nonemployee directors are eligible to participate in Puget Sound Energy’s
Deferred Compensation Plan for Nonemployee Directors. Directors annually may
elect to defer all or a part of their fees payable in cash. Deferred
compensation may be allocated in one or more "measurement funds" (which
currently includes an interest crediting fund, an equity index fund, a bond
index fund and a Puget Energy common stock fund). Changes in "measurement funds"
allocations are allowed quarterly.
#### GLENN v. LAVENDER et al.

No. 8557.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

April 19, 1939.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled June 28, 1939.

Jno. B. Daniel, of Temple, and Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for appellant.

Dibrell & Snodgrass, of Coleman, for appellees.

McClendon, chief justice.

This is a usury case and its second appeal. Lavender v. Glenn, Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 714. Upon the issue of usury the case is on all fours with Temple Trust Co. v. Haney, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1035; affirmed Tex.Sup., 107 S.W.2d 368, rehearing opinion Tex.Sup., 126 S.W.2d 950. In our former opinion we referred to the loan as one for $1,500, evidenced by a note for $1,660. As a matter of fact the amount of the loan was $3,000, evidenced by notes aggregating $3,360, the last maturing being for $1,660. The trial court held the notes usurious and found that the $3,000 loan was entitled to credits represented by payments on principal ($1,200) and interest ($766.20), of $1,966.20, leaving a balance of $1,033.80. He credited this sum with $824, being double the amount of interest paid within two years of filing the suit, leaving a balance of $209.80. To this he added ten per cent attorney’s fees, and .rendered judgment for $230.12 (the correct amount should have been $230.78), with foreclosure of the asserted lien.

By applying the method adopted in the Haney cáse above, we fipd that ■ there has been no interest payment as to which Mrs. Lavender is entitled to the statutory penalty. The amount of the loan ($3,000) should therefore be credited only with $2,-378.20, the full amount of principal and interest actually paid ($1200+766.20+$412), and judgment rendered for that amount *392'($621.80), plus ten per cent attorney’s fees ($62.18), in all $683.98.

The trial court rendered judgment against Harbour (who had assumed the 'debt) for the same amount as that rendered against Mrs. Lavender. Appellant assigns error in this regard predicated upon the proposition that Harbour cannot avail himself of the plea of usury as to his personal obligation because of his assumption. No brief has been filed for Harbour. We sustain this assignment, and appellant is directed to file with the clerk within ten days a draft of decree as to Harbour showing the correct amount of personal judgment to be rendered against him in accordance with our former opinion; and the judgment will be reformed in that regard accordingly.

As to Mrs. Lavender (no personal judgment being sought against her), the trial court’s judgment is reformed so as to award appellant a judgment establishing his lien upon the property in suit to secure his above debt of $683.98, together with interest thereon at 6% per annum from date of the trial court’s judgment, with foreclosure of said lien.

All costs are assessed against appellees.

Reformed and affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Report of USCorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the
period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Dultz, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(1) 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) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Robert DultzRobert
      DultzChief
      Executive Officer and
                Acting
      Chief Financial Officer




Date:
June 24, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           12835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    22547
<ALLOWANCES>                                        38
<INVENTORY>                                      20735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 58765
<PP&E>                                           32014
<DEPRECIATION>                                   22618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   69851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            22558
<BONDS>                                           8060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                       39060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     69851
<SALES>                                          26397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 26397
<CGS>                                            11520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2383
<INCOME-TAX>                                       830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1553
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
LUIS GUERRERO,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0177

Opinion filed February 6, 2017.

Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Anabelle Dias of Anabelle Dias P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The amended petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of the 5th day of November, 2008, by and
between CSC TRANSPORT, INC., a Delaware corporation with a place of business at
8000 Republic Airport Hangar 5, Farmingdale, New York 11768 (“Lessor”), and
STERLING AVIATION LLC, a New York limited liability company with a place of
business at 340 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York 11797 (“Lessee”).


 


W  I  T
N  E  S  S  E  T  H:


 


WHEREAS,
Lessor is the operator of the helicopters more particularly described on
Schedule A hereto, as amended from time to time (the “Helicopters”); and


 


WHEREAS,
Lessor employs a fully-qualified and credentialed flight crew to operate each
of the Helicopters; and


 


WHEREAS,
Lessor has agreed to lease each of the Helicopters, with flight crew, to Lessee
on a “time sharing” basis as defined in Section 91.501(c)(1) of the
Federal Aviation Regulations upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Time Sharing Agreements entered into between Lessor and Lessee,
each effective as of January 1, 2002 (the “Time Sharing Agreements”); and


 


WHERAS,
Lessor and its affiliates intend to buy, sell and lease helicopters (including
the Helicopters) from time to time, and desire for the time sharing
arrangements set forth in the Time Sharing Agreements to cover all Helicopters
set forth on Schedule A hereto, as such Schedule may be amended from time to
time.


 


NOW,  THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and
the mutual promises set forth herein, Lessor and Lessee hereby agree as
follows:


 


1.
The terms and conditions set forth in the Time Sharing Agreements shall apply
to each of the Helicopters set forth on Schedule A hereto, as amended from time
to time.


 


2.
Lessor may, upon written notice to Lessee, amend Schedule A from time to time
to add or delete Helicopters as appropriate.


 


(signature page follows)


 

















 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Agreement this 5 day of
November, 2008, effective as of the date first above written.


 


 


	
  

  	
   

  	
  LESSOR:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CSC
  TRANSPORT, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Joseph J. Lhota

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name

  	
  Joseph
  J. Lhota

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  EVP, Corporate Administration

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  LESSEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  STERLING
  AVIATION LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Charles F. Dolan

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name

  	
  Charles
  F. Dolan

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Member
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1171

ANA CELI MOLINA

- BARAHONA , Petitioner ,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 17, 2020 Decided: December 3, 2020

Before FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Charlie E. Carrillo, CARRILLO & CARRILLO, LLC, Frederick, Maryland , for Petitioner. Ethan P. Davis , Acting Assistant Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz , Office of Immigration Litigation , Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washi ngton, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ana Celi Molina

- Barahona, a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and Molina

- Barahona’s claims and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) , (b) (2020); Narine v. Holder , 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Molina

- Barahona (B.I.A. Jan. 16, 2020 ). 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. PETITION DENIED
Filed 3/13/14 P. v. Furbush CA2/5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FIVE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

KENNETH FURBUSH, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B249109 

 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. 

 No. BA403241) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Clifford 

L. Klein, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Law Offices of Sarah A. Stockwell and Sarah A. Stockwell, under appointment by 

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

_________________________________ 
2

 Defendant and appellant Kenneth Furbush was convicted by jury of possession of 

marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359. Defendant 

admitted suffering two prior convictions under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 

subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of 

two years, doubled under the three strikes law, for a total of four years in prison. 

 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. This court appointed counsel for 

defendant. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but requested this court to 

independently review the record for arguable contentions pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised by letter from this court dated January 23, 

2014, of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. The 30-day period has 

lapsed and no brief has been received. 

 Our review of the record indicates that substantial evidence supports the judgment. 

Defendant engaged in a physical struggle with law enforcement officers at a train station 

after he was found to be in possession of an invalid “Tap” card used to pay the train fare. 

He was subdued and handcuffed. A strong odor of unburned marijuana emanated from 

defendant. A search of his backpack revealed the presence of 12 baggies of marijuana, 

which in the opinion of an expert witness, were possessed for the purpose of sale. 

 Our review further reveals that defendant was fully advised of his rights and the 

consequences of admitting his prior convictions under the three strikes law. The sentence 

imposed by the trial court was within the range of judicial discretion provided by law. 

 There are no arguable appellate contentions in this case. The judgment is 

affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) 

 KRIEGLER, J. 

We concur: 

 TURNER, P. J. MOSK, J.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0639. ANTON J. SMITH v. THE STATE.

A jury convicted Anton J. Smith of rape, kidnapping, aggravated sodomy,

armed robbery, and burglary. This Court reversed his conviction for armed robbery,

but otherwise affirmed. See Smith v. State, 244 Ga. App. 165 (534 SE2d 903)

(2000). In 2019, Smith filed a motion to set aside the verdict and a motion for

transcripts, which the trial court denied. Smith then filed this direct appeal, seeking

to challenge the trial court’s ruling on his motion to set aside.

1 We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

In his motion to set aside and in his brief on appeal, Smith argues that the trial

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of defects in his indictment and the

grand jury procedure. But such a claim is an attack on his convictions. See

Thompson v. State, 304 Ga. 146, 149 (3) (816 SE2d 646) (2018) (“Appellant claims

that his convictions are void because the record does notshow that his indictment was

returned in open court.”); Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) (659 SE2d 875)

(2008) (holding that attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the

judgment of conviction vacated). “[A] petition to vacate or modify a judgment of

conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case[,]” and any appeal from an

1 Smith also appealed from a separate order denying his motion to dismiss, in

which Smith raised a similar argument to that raised in his motion to set aside. See

Case No. A20A0638.

December 12, 2019
order denying or dismissing such a motion must be dismissed. Harper v. State, 286

Ga. 216, 218 (1)-(2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009).

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

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.

12/12/2019
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, Fact CT-MR Registration For Image Guided Procedures.                    

*Date:*                         December 19, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         2 pm to 3 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Library of Medicine, Division of Extramural Programs, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Milton Corn, MD, Associate Director, Office of Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, Rockledge One, Suite 301, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: November 28, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-31211  Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M