alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 HELISYS, INC.

        PURSUANT TO SECTION 242 OF THE DELAWARE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW

     HELISYS, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under the Delaware
General Corporation Law (the "Corporation"), hereby certifies as follows:

     FIRST:  The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is amended by
deleting Section 1 of Article 4 in its entirety and by substituting in lieu
thereof the following:

         "Section 1.       Authorized Shares.  The Corporation shall be
          ---------        -----------------
       authorized to issue two classes of stock to be designated, respectively,
       "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock".  The aggregate number of shares of
       all classes of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue
       is twenty-five million (25,000,000) shares, consisting of (i) twenty
       million (20,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share,
       and (ii) five million (5,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, $0.001 par
       value per share."

     SECOND:  At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on
December 5, 1997, the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted
resolutions setting forth the foregoing amendment to the Certification of
Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and
directing the foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation be considered at the Annual Meeting of the Stockholders of the
Corporation to be held in February, 1998.

     THIRD:  At the Annual Meeting of the Stockholders of the Corporation duly
called and held on February 4, 1998, upon notice in accordance with Section 222
of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the holders of a majority of the
outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Corporation entitled to vote thereon
voted in favor of the foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation.

     FOURTH.  The foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment of its Certificate of Incorporation to be executed and acknowledged by
its President this 19th day of February, 1998.

                                         HELISYS, INC.

                                         By:   /s/  MICHAEL FEYGIN
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Michael Feygin
                                             Title: Chairman, Chief Executive
                                                    Officer and Chief Technical
                                                    Officer
1 

1 1 655 i 

i 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Xon. C. K. Ford 

County Attorney 

San Saba County 

3an Saba, Texas 

Dear Sir1 Opinion S?o. O-7146 

lb?: Is Southwestern Colle 

Oeorgctovn liable 

on lend owned by 

in San Saba C 

requesting an 

flrnt tvo pare 

r letter of Harch 9, 

We quote the 

ts appear to be that Southvestern 

some 200 acrea of land in tNe 

a lcasecl th!.a land to private lndlvlduale from year to year for a sum of money, 

vhlch eum of money it lo preeumed is ueed to 

maintain said school. There are unpaid taxes 

due on said land for the years from 1931 to 

194,5 lnclusive~ The Tax Collector would like 

to collect thiq if the land ia taxable and 

collectible.* 
‘ 

. 

Hon. C. K, Ford - Page 2 

We think opinion No. 0-3083, a copy of which is 

herewith ancloned, vrltten by this department and approved 

on Februnry I&, 1941, ensvers the question of whether or 

not the property you mentioned 1s subject to tax. You will 

note that the opinion 1s based on the case of St. Edwards 

College v. Morris, 17 3. W. 512. The facts OS tNe case 

uere, briefly, a8 follows+ 

St. Edwards University was eituetod on a tract of 

land contcslning a.pproxlmately 499 acres. About 160, acres 

of the land was in cultivation. The farm products, cattle, 

hogs etc. produced on the land Vere used by the College to 

supply tables for the boardin% school. Ths court held that 

the land upon which the bulldings were located end which 

was wed exclusively for educational purposes was exempt from 

taxation but that the,I.end being farmed was not exempt from 

taxation. The facts concerning the Southvestern University 

case are very elnller but, in fact, we think make even a 

stronger cese. The lend in question la located in a different 

county from that in which the college is located. Too, tiae 

land IS being farmed out to 1ndlvidual.s and simply the proCe8d3 Prom the rental being peid on the land in used for 

the upkeep of the college. 

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the land 

located ln San Seba County is subject to tax, 

Article 7326, Vernon's Annotated Clvll Statutes, reai?s 

a3 follovsr 

"Whetiever any taxes on real ertate have b8COm8 

delinquent, it shell be the duty OS the county~attorney, 

upon the expiration of thirty days notice provided for 

In the two preceding articles, or es soon thereafter 

as twactical. to file suit in the name of the State of 

Texas in the~lM.otrlct Court of the county where puch 

reel estate is situated. . . .'I (Underscoring ours) 

You are advised therefore that it Is the nplnlon of this 

department that a suit may be brought egaln6t the Southvestern 
657; 

fbn.C.K. Ford - Page 3 

ljDiVW?slty in the Dietrict Court of San Saba County ror the 

colleotion of the taxea you mentioned. 

Truetlng the above satisfactorily annvere pour inquiry, ve are 

f P 

Yours vary truly 

. ATTORNEY G3XiERALOFTEXAS 

ATTORNEY GFSJTERAL OF TEXAS 

-,~ * 

;: .j ,A *, 

W E. W. DeGeurin 

.'~ Aeelsttrat
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3


                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Paul G.
Vanderhoven, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/S/ PAUL G. VANDERHOVEN
------------------------
(Paul G. Vanderhoven)
Vice President - Finance
and Chief Financial Officer

Date:   December 13, 2002



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Argued and submitted June 18,

affirmed July 14,

reconsideration denied September 29,

petition for review allowed November 16, 1993 (318 Or 60)

See later issue Oregon Reports

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MICHAEL FLOYD MERRILL, *Appellant.*

(DA461348-9202; CA A76575)

855 P2d 666

Wayne Mackeson, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Des Connall, P.C., Portland.

Robert B. Rocklin, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Amy E. Alpaugh, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and Richardson, Chief Judge, and Leeson, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v.*Rode, 118 Or App 665, 848 P2d 1232 (1993).
# C_2005115EN.01002602.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/26

---

Action brought on 16 February 2005 by Monte di Massima s.a.s. di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-96/05)

(2005/C 115/49)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 February 2005 by Monte di Massima s.a.s. di Pruneddu Leonardo & C., represented by Ennio Masu and Paola Alessandra E. Pittalis, lawyers.

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was J. M. Höffele Internationale Handelsgesellschaft.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that the decision of 24 November 2004 of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) misapplies Article 15(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that the decision of 24 November 2004 of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) misapplies Article 15(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for registration of the Community trade mark: | Monte di Massima s.a.s. |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark applied for: | Figurative mark VALLE DELLA LUNA — Application for registration No 2 029 726 for goods in Class 32 (water, syrups, beers and non-alcoholic drinks) |
| Owner of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | J. M. Höffele Internationale Handelsgesellschaft |
| Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | German word mark VALLE DE LA LUNA for goods in Class 33 (wines) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal | Appeal allowed |
| Pleas in law: | Misapplication of Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark |

Applicant for registration of the Community trade mark:

Monte di Massima s.a.s.

Community trade mark applied for:

Figurative mark VALLE DELLA LUNA — Application for registration No 2 029 726 for goods in Class 32 (water, syrups, beers and non-alcoholic drinks)

Owner of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

J. M. Höffele Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

German word mark VALLE DE LA LUNA for goods in Class 33 (wines)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal

Appeal allowed

Pleas in law:

Misapplication of Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02526]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0354]


Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding the Effect 
of Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 
2010 on State and Local Menu and Vending Machine Labeling Laws; 
Withdrawal of Guidance

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the 
withdrawal of a guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Questions 
and Answers Regarding the Effect of Section 4205 of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 on State and Local Menu and 
Vending Machine Labeling Laws,'' dated August 2010. We are taking this 
action because the policies stated in the guidance have been superseded 
by our issuance of final rules on menu and vending machine labeling.

DATES: February 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia B. Billingslea, Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-
402-2371.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52427), we announced the 
availability of a guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Questions 
and Answers Regarding the Effect of Section 4205 of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 on State and Local Menu and 
Vending Machine Labeling Laws.'' The guidance stated that we were 
issuing the guidance to: (1) Ensure that industry and State and local 
governments understand the immediate effects of the law, and (2) 
clarify the effect of section 4205 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act of 2010 on State and local menu and vending machine 
labeling laws.
    We are withdrawing this guidance because we recently issued two 
final rules entitled ``Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard 
Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments'' and 
``Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending 
Machines'' (see 79 FR 71156 (December 1, 2014) and 79 FR 71259 
(December 1, 2014), respectively). The preambles for these final rules 
discuss issues relating to Federalism and to federal preemption of 
State and local laws and reflect our latest thinking on those issues. 
Consequently, the guidance no longer reflects our current thinking 
insofar as the law's effect on State and local menu and vending machine 
labeling laws is concerned.

    Dated: February 3, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02526 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
# C_2004317EN.01000801.xml

| 22.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 December 2004

(2004/C 317/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3394 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4338 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69230 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9695 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5403 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,75 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2575 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5788 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,493 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6893 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4322 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1021 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 551 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,79 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,565 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 862 000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7476 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6424 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4202 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8779 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1983 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 413,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,5914 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3394

JPY

Japanese yen

139,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4338

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69230

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9695

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5403

ISK

Iceland króna

83,75

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2575

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5788

CZK

Czech koruna

30,493

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6893

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4322

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1021

ROL

Romanian leu

38 551

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,79

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,565

TRL

Turkish lira

1 862 000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7476

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6424

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4202

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8779

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1983

KRW

South Korean won

1 413,87

ZAR

South African rand

7,5914

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Accountants:

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
 Optika Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-56501 and 333-42250) on Form S-8 of Optika Inc. of our report dated January
19, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Optika Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss)
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K,
of Optika Inc.

                                                KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 17, 2004
*April 7, 1937.*

#### Holly, Respondent, vs. First National Bank of Kenosha, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Randall, Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mit-telstaed*of Keno'sha.

For the respondent: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Jefferson Burras*and *Victor D. Werner*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005035EN.01001001.xml

| 10.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/10

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — eTEN 2005/1

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

(2005/C 35/06)

1.   Objectives and description

eTEN is the European Community Programme designed to help the deployment of telecommunication networks based services (e-services) in the common interest with a trans-European dimension. Information on the eTEN Programme 2005 can be found on the internet site of the eTEN programme:

http://europa.eu.int/eten

Pursuant to the eTEN Workprogramme 2005, the Commission hereby invites consortia to submit proposals of the following action types and covering one or more of the following themes:

Action Types:

| 1. | Initial Deployment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Initial Deployment;

| 2. | Market Validation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Market Validation;

| 3. | Support and Co-ordination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Support and Co-ordination.

Themes:

Proposals addressing action types 1 and 2 must address one or more of the following themes identified for 2005 in the eTEN Workprogramme:

| 1. | eGovernment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

eGovernment;

| 2. | eHealth; |
| --- | --- |

2.

eHealth;

| 3. | eInclusion; |
| --- | --- |

3.

eInclusion;

| 4. | eLearning; |
| --- | --- |

4.

eLearning;

| 5. | Trust & Security; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Trust & Security;

| 6. | Services supporting SMEs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Services supporting SMEs.

2.   Eligibilty of consortia

In order to be eligible for receiving community support for eTEN projects, proposers must be legal entities in one of the 25 member states of the European Union, Romania or Bulgaria. Legal entities from other countries may participate on a case by case basis if such participation is considered to be of special interest. They will not receive Community funding.

3.   Evaluation and selection

Proposals received will be evaluated by the Commission with the assistance of independent experts. Proposals will be ranked in quality. Preference for funding will be given to Initial Deployment proposals (action type 1).

4.   Budget

The total budget for this call of proposals is EUR 45,3M

5.   Deadline for submission

Proposals have to reach the Commission at the latest on Tuesday 10 May 2005, at 16:00 hours (Brussels local time). Proposals arriving after this deadline will not be accepted for evaluation

6.   Additional information

The full specification of this call for proposals, including details on the preparation and submission of proposals are available in English, French and German together with all relevant call documentation on the internet site of the eTEN programme.

http://europa.eu.int/eten

---
# C_2004258EN.01001701.xml

| 20.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/17

---

Amendment to the notice of invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats from Finland and Sweden

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 222 of 4 September 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 222 of 4 September 2004

(2004/C 258/05)

On page 9, the first indent of paragraph 2 under heading II 'Time Limits' should read as follows:

| ‘2. | For the subsequent weekly awards, the period for the receipt of tenders will expire at 10 a.m. on the Thursday of each week.
  However, on 4 November 2004, 23 December 2004, 30 December 2004, 24 March 2005 and 5 May 2005, the invitation to tender is suspended.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2.

For the subsequent weekly awards, the period for the receipt of tenders will expire at 10 a.m. on the Thursday of each week.

However, on 4 November 2004, 23 December 2004, 30 December 2004, 24 March 2005 and 5 May 2005, the invitation to tender is suspended.’

---
Taylor Cupp

January 23rd 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations

Dear Madam, Sir,

I am supplying additional information requested in order to finalize processing of my Section 333 

Exemption request for section 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 as it relates to how granting an exemption to my 

request would be in the public interest. My filed Docket No. is FAA-2015-4914 and exemption 

request was submitted on July 28th 2015.

Granting the request for my exemption request would benefit the public,\ as I will conduct the 

commercial UAS operation in a manner that will meet, and in many cases exceed the current 

level of safety of commercial manned flight operations. My UAV service will offer a less 

disruptive, more fuel efficient, safer, and effective data collection method to the construction 

industry than manned aviation equivalent. This is due to the low altitude flight, size, speed and 

inherent risk of UAV flight under the platform that I have requested my exemption. 

Utilizing a UAV will also allow me to provide my customers a service and platform that will 

also save money and increase workflow efficiency. Most importantly, the unmanned aspect 

decreases the risk of placing employees in hazardous conditions often required by traditional 

data collection methods in the construction industry.

In summary, I feel that I should be granted my request for exemption by:

 Reducing the collateral damage risks to life and property associated with low altitude manned flight operations in 

undesirable portions of the height-velocity envelope. 

 Reduced environmental impact as the result of operation.

 Increased economic wellbeing to local businesses via cost reductions. 

 Enabling aerial business solutions to be available to a larger market.

Yours sincerely,

Taylor Cupp

6268 55th Avenue South

Fargo, ND 58104

PH: 612-834-7015

Email : taylorcupp@gmail.com