alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 4.2  


 
  CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE
  AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
  OF
  ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.
  

*        *        *        *    




    The undersigned, being the Secretary of Allegiance Telecom, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY as follows: 


    FIRST:
The Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted the resolution set forth below proposing an amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation (the "Amendment") and directed that the Amendment be submitted to the stockholders of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of the Corporation entitled to vote thereon for its
consideration and approval: 



RESOLVED,
that the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be, and hereby is, amended in accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law by
replacing Part A of ARTICLE IV thereof with the following: 



"Part A.
General. The maximum number of shares of capital stock that the Corporation is authorized to have outstanding at any one time is 751,000,000 shares, consisting of: (i) 1,000,000
shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the "Preferred Stock"); and (ii) 750,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the "Common Stock")." 





    SECOND:
That the Certificate of Amendment has been approved by the Corporation pursuant to a resolution of its Board of Directors and duly adopted by the majority of the shares
outstanding entitled to vote thereon. 


    THIRD:
The Certificate of Amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 242 and 222 of Delaware General Corporation Law. 


    FOURTH:
That the Certificate of Amendment shall become effective on the date this Certificate of Amendment is duly filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. 


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned does hereby declare and certify under penalties of perjury that this Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation is the act and deed of the Corporation and the facts stated herein are true, and accordingly has hereunto set his hand this 27 day of August, 2001. 



	 	 	ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.,

a Delaware corporation
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ MARK B. TRESNOWSKI   
 Mark B. Tresnowski,

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary











QuickLinks


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEEC, INC.
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      23,892,922
<SECURITIES>                                 6,714,153
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,019,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (218,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,846,058
<PP&E>                                       1,513,106
<DEPRECIATION>                               (443,938)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,676,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,915,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,848
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,482,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,676,271
<SALES>                                        892,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,003,896
<CGS>                                           47,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  675,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,468,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,286
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (763,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (100,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (663,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (663,573)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 3, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



| | (i) | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended May 3, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/    RAJEEV MADHAVANRajeev Madhavan Chief Executive OfficerJuly 17, 2009


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

The
foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended May 3, 2009 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION  I,  Chong Kim as Secretary and Treasurer (CFO),  certify  that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Marvins Place, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by       others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control financial reporting;  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: August 18, 2008 By:/s/ Chong Kim Chong Kim, Secretary and Treasurer (CFO)     5
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 30, 2021

NO. 03

- 20

- 00073

- CV

Kirk Wayne McBride , Appellant

v.

Pamela Theilke, Michael Arellano, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles,

David Gutierrez, and Rachel Alderete , Appe llee s

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on January 8, 2020

. Having

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

error in the judgment

. Therefo re, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because appellant

is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
|    |                                                                                                                       |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 United Insurance Holdings Corp. |

|                                                                                                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                   |  |  |
| By:                                                                                                               | /s/ Hassan R. Baqar |   |
|                                                                                                              |   |   |
| Hassan R. BaqarInterim Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) | November 9, 2011 |
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States Distric t 1 Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-2691

___________ Emmett Mitchell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 1997 Filed: March 11, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Emmet t Mitchell appeals the district court's dismissal wit h 1 prejudice of his discriminatio n action for his repeated failure to attend his deposition. Having reviewed the record and the p arties' briefs, we conclude that the district court did not abuse it s discretion in dismissing Mitchell's action pursuant to Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d). See Boogaerts v. Bank of Bradley , 96 1 F.2d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Anderson v. Home Ins. Co. , 724 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 D0 26 7 . SI DNEY E. GOODW I N, J R. v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 0

, Si d ne y E

. G o o d wi n

, J r., p l ed g u i l t y t o t wo co u n t s o f ag g rav at ed

as s au l t

. It do es n o t ap p ear t h at Go o d wi n fi l ed a d i rect ap p e a l o f h is co n v i ct i o n

. In

2 0 2 0

, Go o d wi n fi l e d a m o t i o n i n wh i ch h e so u g h t t o wi t h d raw h i s g u i lt y p l ea an d

req u es t ed an o u t-o f-t i m e ap p eal

. Th e s u p eri o r co urt i s s u ed an o rd er d i s m i s s i n g t h e

m o ti o n t o t he ex t en t i t s o u gh t t o wi t h d raw t h e g u i l t y p l ea an d d en y i n g it to t h e ex t en t

i t req u es t ed an o u t-o f-t i m e ap p eal

. Go o d w i n t h en fi l ed t h e in s t an t t i m el y ap p l i cat i o n

fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap p eal

. 1

Th e s u p eri o r co u rt ’ s o rd er i s n o t s u b ject t o t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re,

s ee OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a), an d it ap p ears t h at t h e o rd er i s s ub ject to d i rect ap peal

. Th e

d en ial o f a m o ti o n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal i s d irect l y ap p eal ab le wh en t h e cri m i n al

co n vi ct i o n at i s su e h as n o t u n d erg o n e ap p e l l a t e rev i ew. Ro ma no v. S t a t e

, 2 9 7 Ga.

4 9 7

, 4 97 (7 7 5 SE2 d 15 1 ) (2 0 1 5 ). Ord ers res o l v i n g o u t -o f-t i m e m o t i o n s to wi t h d raw

g u i l t y p l eas h av e b een treat ed b y o u r Su p rem e Co u rt as d i rec t l y ap peal ab l e. See

El l i so n v. S t a t e

, 2 8 3 Ga. 4 6 1 (6 6 0 SE2 d 37 3 ) (2 00 8 ); S m i t h v. S ta t e

, 2 8 3 Ga. 3 7 6 (6 5 9

SE2 d 3 8 0) (2 0 0 8).

W e wi l l g ran t a t i m el y d i s cret i o n a r y a p p li cat i o n i f t h e l ower co u rt ’ s o rd er i s

s u bject t o d i rect ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd i n g ly

, t hi s ap p l i cat i o n i s

h e r e b y GRANTED. Go o d wi n s h al l h av e t en d ay s fro m t h e d at e o f th i s ord er t o fi l e

a n o t ice o f ap p eal wi t h t h e s u p eri o r co u rt

, i f h e h as n o t al read y d o n e s o

. Th e cl erk o f

t h e s u p eri o r co u rt i s D IRECTED t o i n cl u de a co py o f t h i s o rd er in t h e reco rd

1 Go o d wi n fi l ed hi s ap p li cat io n i n t he Su p rem e Co urt

, wh i ch t ran s ferred i t h ere. April 12, 2021t ran s m i t t ed t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/12/2021
Exhibit 32.1 - Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 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 on Form 10-QSB of Advant-e Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the report), the undersigned, Jason K. Wadzinski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.



|                          |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: September 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jason K. Wadzinski 
|                          |  |     |  | Jason K. Wadzinski     
|                          |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



17
#### The State v. Ruferty. The State v. Bassett.

1. Intoxicating Liquors: nuisance: indictment: duplicity: FIRST OFFENSE. *State v. Howorth, ante,*157, followed.

*Appeals from Harrison District Court.*

Thursday, December 2.

*John H. Heatley*and *Charles Maelcenzie,*for appellant.

*A. J. Baiter Attorney-general,*for the State.

*161Bece, J.

Tbe records in these cases are substantially like those in the foregoing cases of *State v. Howorth, ante,*157, except in the first no forfeiture of the defendant’s recognizance was declared. The questions of law in those cases arise in these. Following those decisions, we order the judgment against defendants to be affirmed, and a judgment to be entered upon the appeal bond in each case.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS GARAU; OLGA H. GARAU, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, Court Services Division, 

Civil Management Bureau; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-56086 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01273-CJC-PLA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 19, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Carlos Garau and Olga H. Garau appeal from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of their state 

court unlawful detainer proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The appellants’ request for 

oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

FILED

JAN 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-56086 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ claims because they are a 

“forbidden de facto appeal” of state court unlawful detainer proceedings and raise 

issues that are “inextricably intertwined” with those proceedings. Noel v. Hall, 341 

F.3d 1148, 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); 

see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims are 

“inextricably intertwined” for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine where “the 

relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court 

decision or void its ruling” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Craig 

v. State Bar of Cal., 141 F.3d 1353, 1355 n.3 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The fact that the 

California Supreme Court denied [plaintiff’s] petition for review without comment 

does not mean that no adjudication occurred.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants leave to 

amend their claims because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. 

City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of 

review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be 

futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice. See 
3 20-56086 

Fed. R. Evid. 201; Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(standard of review).

Appellants’ motion to take judicial notice of state court records (Docket 

Entry No. 26) is granted.

AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAIME CISNEROS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50060

D.C. No. 2:95-cr-00595-SVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jaime Cisneros appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

revocation of his supervised release and the 24-month sentence imposed upon

revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Cisneros’s

FILED

JAN 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-50060

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Cisneros the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Cisneros’s motion to expedite is DENIED AS MOOT.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.