alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 3.1.35**

 

**ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

# **EQUINOX SOUTH BEACH, INC.**

(Pursuant to Section 607.0202 of the FloridaBusiness Corporation Act)

 

**FIRST:                 **Thename of the corporation formed hereby (hereinafter the “Corporation”) shall beEquinox South Beach, Inc.  The initialprincipal office and mailing address of the Corporation shall be at: c/oEquinox Holdings, Inc., 895 Broadway, New York, New York 10003.

 

**SECOND:            **Theaddress of the initial registered office of the Corporation in the State ofFlorida shall be: c/o Paracorp Incorporated, 236 East 6th Street,Tallahassee, Florida 32303.  The name ofthe registered agent of the Corporation at such address is: ParacorpIncorporated.

 

**THIRD:                **TheCorporation is formed to engage in any lawful act or activity for whichcorporations may be organized under the Florida Business Corporation Act, asamended from time to time.

 

**FOURTH:           **Theaggregate number of shares that the Corporation shall have authority to issueis 200 shares.  Such shares are toconsist of one class only, designated Common Stock, zero dollar par value.

 

**FIFTH:                **Theduration of the Corporation shall be perpetual, unless otherwise dissolved inaccordance with the Florida Business Corporation Act and the bylaws of theCorporation.

 

**SIXTH:                **TheCorporation shall, to the fullest extent permitted by the provisions of theDelaware Limited Liability Company Act, as the same may be amended from time totime, indemnify and hold harmless any director, officer, shareholder, agent orother person of the Company.

 

**SEVENTH:**          The name and address of the soleincorporator shall be: Brian S. Werfel, Rosen Weinhaus LLP, 40 Wall Street, NewYork, New York 10005.

 

**EIGHTH:**             The corporate existence of theCorporation shall begin on December 23, 2004.

 

----

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the undersigned sole incorporator has executed and delivered this Articles ofIncorporation of Equinox South Beach, Inc. this 24th****day of December, 2004.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brian S. Werfel        |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Brian S. Werfel            |
|   |   | Sole Incorporator          |
|   |   | Rosen Weinhaus LLP         |
|   |   | 40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor |
|   |   | New York, New York 10005   |

 

 

**Having been named as the registered agent toaccept service of process for the above stated corporation at the addressdesignated in this certificate, I/we hereby acknowledge that I/we are familiarwith and accept such appointment as registered agent of the above statedcorporation and agree to act in such capacity.**

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Paracorp Incorporated      |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Name:                          |
|   |   | Title:                         |
|   |   | Company: Paracorp Incorporated |
|   |   | Date:                          |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

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 First American Scientific Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, John Brian Nichols, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 10th day of November, 2004.



| | /s/ John Brian Nichols 
John Brian Nichols
Chief Executive Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, J.A. FISCHER, M.K. JAMISON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SERGEI A. YARUSHIN

CORPORAL (E

- 4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201 400018

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

**Sentence Adjudged:** 25 September 2013.

**Military Judge:** LtCol Eugene H. Robinson, Jr., USMC.

**Convening Authority:** Commanding Officer, Headquarters

Battalion, 3d Marine Division (

- )(REIN), Okinawa, Japan

. **Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation:**  LtCol K.T. Carlisle

,

USMC

. **For Appellant:** CAPT Jill R. James, JAGC, USN ; LCDR Ryan

Mattina, JAGC, USN

. **For Appellee:** Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

**30 April 2014** 

**---------------------------------------------------**

**OPINION OF THE COURT**

**- --------------------------------------------------** 

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military J ustice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 2 4 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00418

- CV

KIM

- HUONG T. HUNYHG , Appellant

V.
HOUTEX CITY ALLSTAR REALTY, LLC D/B/A RE /MAX MEMORIAL REALTY AND PETER B. MERRITT, LLC , App ellee s

On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 15810



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from an order signed March 3, 2014, which made the partial summary judgment signed October 18, 2013, final . On June 17 , 20 14 , appellant filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal because the case has
been settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Just ices Busby and Donovan.
Exhibit 31.1

I, Vincent A. Wasik, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, of Velocity Express Corporation;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: November 20, 2006



/s/ Vincent A. WasikVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

l1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139365

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139365 COA: 292048 Wayne CC: 08007535-FC DONALD JOSEPH COOK II, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 474 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-465, K2025-462.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27933 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### In re John J. BORTZEL and Jane S. Bortzel, Debtors. Alden D. WUNDER, Plaintiff, v. John J. BORTZEL and Jane S. Bortzel, Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 80-01106 T.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 16, 1982.

Jonathan L. Wesner, Reading, Pa., for plaintiff.

Larry B. Maier, Ephrata, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case presents the issue of whether an unlisted creditor should be granted an extension of time to file a proof of claim and a complaint to determine dischargeability of a debt. For reasons hereinafter given, we find that the creditor is entitled to an extension under the circumstances of this case.1

The debtor-defendants, John J. Bortzel and Jane S. Bortzel, filed a petition in bankruptcy on May 19,1980. The creditor-plaintiff, Alden D. Wunder, was not listed as a creditor on the schedules filed at that time. He received no notice of the bankruptcy. In January, 1981, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had filed a bankruptcy petition when he attempted to reduce his claim against them to judgment in district justice court. The plaintiff filed an application for extension of time to file complaint to determine the dischargeability of the debt on January 16, 1981. On August 27, 1981, defendants filed an amendment to their schedules, listing plaintiff as a creditor in an amount which plaintiff disputes.

Based upon the pleadings and briefs filed by counsel, we conclude that plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time to file his complaint. Rule 409(a) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provides, in part, “[T]he court may for cause, in its own initiative or on application of any party in interest, extend the time fixed under this paragraph.” In view of the fact that plaintiff had no notice of the May 19,1980, filing date and, as an unlisted creditor, no obligation to respond to the filing in any case, he was not bound by the deadlines established by that filing. Plaintiff acted promptly upon receiving actual notice of the bankruptcy in January, 1981. The defendants did not list plaintiff’s claim by amendment *524until August, 1981, so plaintiff’s application was actually premature.

For the foregoing reasons, we will grant plaintiff’s application to file proof of claim and a complaint to determine dischargeability of a debt.

1

. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 752 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY NIXON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

J. E. THOMAS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-36052

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01292-KI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Gary Nixon appeals from the district court’s judgment

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary

hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a

section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.

FILED

MAY 21 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
2008), and we affirm.

Nixon contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) violated his

due process rights by refusing to allow Lieutenant Payne to testify on the subject of

prison policies regarding the opening of legal mail. The DHO excluded this

testimony on the basis that he could independently research the prison’s policies. 

Nixon argues that witness testimony cannot be excluded on this ground. We

disagree. Lack of necessity is a proper basis on which to exclude testimony, and

the record reflects that Nixon’s proposed witness was unnecessary. See Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). 

AFFIRMED. 

2 12-36052
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases

# News Releases - 2003

January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Search News Releases

#### Related Information

            - Speeches

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15



May 11, 2000



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

RE:       Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries

         1). Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-4290) 1995 Long-Term Incentive
Compensation Plan and Individual Stock Options Granted to Certain Directors and
Employees Prior to the Adoption of the Plan

         2). Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-52907) 1998 Employee Incentive
Compensation Plan


Ladies and gentlemen:

We are aware that our report dated April 12, 2000 on our review of interim
financial information of Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
and for the three month period ended April 1, 2000 and in the Company's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by
reference in the registration statements referred to above.

Very truly yours,


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### In re Tom RUBIN, d/b/a Tom Rubin & Associates, Movant-Appellant.

No. 82-2104.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 7, 1982.

*30Stephen D. Drushall, Los Angeles, Cal., for movant-appellant.

James D. Skaggs, Business Manager, Gaylord Broadcasting Co., Edith H. Jones, Houston, Tex., for KHTV-TV.

Before BROWN, POLITZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tom Rubin, doing business as Tom Rubin and Associates, is the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding now pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California.

On January 22, 1982, Rubin initiated discovery proceedings involving KHTV-TV, Houston, Texas, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. KHTV is not a petitioning creditor in the proceedings.

The district judge denied the discovery motion on February 2, 1982. On March 4, 1982, Rubin filed notice of appeal. KHTV moves to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that (1) the district court order denying discovery is an interlocutory order and is non-appealable, and (2) the appeal is moot. We deny the motion to dismiss the appeal.

(1) It is true that normally the. action by the district court on a discovery motion is interlocutory and not appealable. *Honig v. E. I. duPont deNemours & Co., Inc.,*404 F.2d 410 (5th Cir. 1968). But of importance in the circumstances of this case is the requirement under Rule 37(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., that the motion for discovery was required to be filed in the Southern District of Texas. Since KHTV is not a party to the bankruptcy in California, the only way in which the order of the district court denying discovery can be appealed is to this Court. If this appeal is dismissed there is no review of the district court order. Under these circumstances, appeal from such an order should lie. *See Marine Petroleum Co. v. Champlin Petroleum Co.,*641 F.2d 984, 987 n.3 (D.C.Cir.1979); *National Life Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.,*615 F.2d 595, 597 (3rd Cir. 1980).

We find that the denial of the discovery motion in this ease is appealable.

(2) The claim of mootness is based upon a March 10,1982, final cut off date for discovery established by the bankruptcy court. The district court entered its order on February 2, 1982. The notice of appeal was timely filed on March 4, 1982. The order of the bankruptcy court cannot cut off a timely right to appeal. Similar appeals and proceedings are pending in other circuits. The appeal is not moot.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of ap-pellee KHTV-TV to dismiss the appeal is DENIED.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsConference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors

# Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting (NUREG/CP-0172)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CP-0172            - Segment 1 (PDF 9.38 MB)
          - Segment 2 (PDF 11.28 MB)
          - Segment 3 (PDF 7.50 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**April 2001**Date Published:**May 2001

**Compiled by:** Susan Monteleone, Meeting Coordinator

S. Nesmith, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

**Proceedings prepared by:** Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY

Availability Notice

## Preface

This report contains papers presented at the 28th Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting held at the Bethesda Marriott Hotel in Bethesda, Maryland, October 23-25, 2000. The papers for the Plenary Sessions are included first, followed by the papers presented in each of the eight breakout sessions conducted over the course of the three days. They describe progress and results of programs in nuclear safety research conducted in this country and abroad. Foreign participation in the meeting included papers presented by researchers from France, Germany, Japan, and Norway.

The titles of the papers and the names of the authors have been updated and may differ from those that appeared in the final program of the meeting.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021