alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 3(i).3
                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                  LAUTREC, INC.


Pursuant  to  the  provision  of  section  607.1006,   Florida  Statutes,   this
corporation  adopts the  following  articles  of  amendment  to its  articles of
incorporation:

FIRST: Amendment(s) adopted: (indicate article number(s) being amended, added or
       deleted)

     ARTICLE I. NAME. The name of the corporation shall be changed from Lautrec,
Inc.  to RDC  International,  Inc.  The  principal  place  of  business  of this
corporation shall be 630 South Orange Avenue, Sarasota, FL 34236


SECOND:  If  an  amendment  provides  for  an  exchange,   reclassification   or
     cancellation of issued shares, provisions for implementing the amendment if
     not contained in the amendment itself, are as follows:

            N/A


THIRD:      The date of each amendment's adoption:               July 7, 2000.

FOURTH:     Adoption of Amendment(s) check one:

____X___    The amendment(s)  was/were approved by the  shareholders.  The
            number of votes cast for the amendment(s)  was/were sufficient
            for approval.

________    The  amendment(s) was/were  approved  by  the  shareholders  through
            voting groups.

            The following  statements must be separately provided for each
            voting group entitled to vote separately on the amendment(s):

            "The number of votes cast for the  amendment(s)  was/were sufficient
            for approval by
                            --------------------------------------------------."
                                      (Voting Group)
________    The  amendment(s)  was/were  adopted by the board of directors
            without  shareholder  action  and  shareholder  action was not
            required.

________    The amendment(s)  was/were  adopted  by  the  incorporators  without
            shareholder action And shareholder action was not required.



<PAGE>



         Signed this 7th day of July, 2000.


BY:      _________________________________________
         (By the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the
         Board of Directors, President, or other officer
         if adopted by the shareholders)
                           OR
         (By a director if adopted by the directors)
                           OR
         (By an incorporator if adopted by the incorporators)

                 Julie Campbell
Typed or printed Name

                President
Title
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-67371, 333-76724,
333-96919, and 333-121829) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-39674, 333-39676, 333-39678,
333-103527, 333-113704, and 333-124803) of Headwaters Incorporated of our reports dated
November 17, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Headwaters
Incorporated, Headwaters Incorporated managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Headwaters Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended September 30, 2006.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Salt Lake City, UtahNovember 17, 2006
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Pacific Architects & Engineers, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62784

)

Under Contract Nos. W56HZV-17-C-0117

NNJ08JA02C

)

)

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq.

Charles Baek, Esq.

Erin N. Rankin, Esq. 

 Crowell & Moring LLP

 Washington, DC 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

 DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Amelia R. Lister-Sobotkin, Esq.

Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

Adrianne L. Goins, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

 Defense Contract Management Agency

 Chantilly, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 13, 2022

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62784, Appeal of Pacific Architects 

& Engineers, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 14, 2022 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL A. FISHER, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-206 

 Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

 v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

CHAPLIN EMMANUAL SAMUTHRAM, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Withdraw, seeking to withdraw without prejudice his 

claims against Defendant Emmanual Samuthram. (ECF No. 11.) Although Defendant 

Samuthram had the opportunity to respond to this Motion (ECF No. 12), he has nevertheless not 

responded to the Motion. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw 

the claims against Defendant Emmanual Samuthram be GRANTED and that the claims against 

this Defendant be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 11.) 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that 

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in 

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 
2 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and 

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat=l Latex 

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that Afailure to object to the magistrate 

judge=s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant=s] ability to appeal the district 

court=s ruling@); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court=s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge's report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate 

review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 

(6th Cir. 2007) (A[A] general objection to a magistrate judge=s report, which fails to specify the 

issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .@) (citation omitted)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 12, 2017 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### T. G. Watkins *v.*Madge Watkins

5-4159

412 S. W. 2d 609

Opinion delivered March 20, 1967

*ShacJdeford & Shackleford,*for appellant.

*Beryl Anthony Jr.,*for appellee.

GeoRge Rose Smith, Justice.

Tho only question upon this appeal is whether a bill of review to obtain a modification of a divorce decree can he filed after the expiration of the time for appeal. The chancellor dismissed the bill, holding that it was filed too late.

The appellee obtained a divorce on September 8, 1965. The parties owned two tracts of land as tenants by the entirety. The decree awarded one to the appellee and the other to the appellant. On April 19, 1966, the chancellor, in response to a petition for clarification filed by the appellant’s original attorney, entered a supplemental decree directing the parties to put the initial decree into effect by an exchange of deeds. There was no appeal from either decree.

On June 9, 1966, the appellant, by his present counsel, filed, a bill of review asserting that the court had acted beyond its authority in awarding to the appellee a tract owned by the entirety. The bill, as later amended, asked that the two decrees be amended by the deletion *201of the provision .in question. The chancellor, as we have said,, dismissed the hill of review.

Under our holding in *Pyles*v. *Holland,*187 Ark. 550, 60 S. W. 2d 1029 (1933), the chancellor was. right. There we held that a-bill of review such as this one, for error supposedly. apparent on the face of the record, must he filed within the time allowed for an appeal. We pointed out that if the rule were otherwise, “it would follow that an original decree might in effect he brought before the Supreme Court for re-examination after the period prescribed by law for an immediate appeal. . . In other words, the party complaining of the original decree would, in this way, be permitted to do indirectly what the statute has prohibited him from doing directly.” The time allowed for filing the notice of appeal is now thirty days after the entry of the decree. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2106.1 ; *Pinnacle Old Line Ins. Co.*v. *Ellis,*228 Ark. 458, 307 S. W. 2d 882 (1957). Hence the present bill of review was filed out of time.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Bergamo Acquisition Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, Hillard
Herzog, President of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.

                                                     /s/ Hillard Herzog
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Hillard Herzog
                                                     President

                                                     June 19, 2003
#### Antone Medeiros & another *vs.*Inspector of Buildings of New Bedford.

May 28, 1940.

*J. F. Francis,*for the petitioner.

*F. A. Doyle,*City Solicitor, for the respondent; *& J. Ferreira,*for the intervener.

Exceptions overruled. Petition dismissed. The store, the smoke house and the connecting passageway could be found to constitute a single building which conformed to the zoning ordinance. No error appears.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TABATHA FLOWERS, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-208 

 v. Judge Michael H. Watson 

 Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

RIVERSIDE LANDING NURSING 

AND REHABILITATION INC., 

 Defendant. 

ORDER 

Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Cancel Mediation (ECF No. 13), the Court’s 

November 27, 2017 Notice of Mediation Conference, setting this case for mediation is 

VACATED. The parties are DIRECTED to contact the mediator to reschedule the mediation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura _ _ 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Exhibit 99.1




                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of VHS Network, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  Elwin  Cathcart.  Chief
Executive  Officer (and  Principal  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, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

By:                                    /s/ Elwin D. Cathcart
                                      ----------------------------------
                                           Elwin D. Cathcart
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           Principal Financial Officer
                                           May 31, 2003

This  certification   accompanies  this  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.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-10691

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LORENZO SIGALA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CR-097-Y

_________________________________________________________________

March 5, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lorenzo Sigala argues that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

We have reviewed the record, including the transcripts of the

rearraignment and sentencing hearings, and the briefs of the

parties, and we have determined that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Sigala's motion to withdraw his

guilty plea.

The government's motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED.

A F F I R M E D.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4498 

To permit voters to vote for ‘‘None of the Above’’ in elections for Federal 

office and to require an additional election if ‘‘None of the Above’’ 

receives the most votes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Mr. HOEKSTRA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit voters to vote for ‘‘None of the Above’’ in elections 

for Federal office and to require an additional election 

if ‘‘None of the Above’’ receives the most votes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal None of the 

5 Above Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF ‘‘NONE OF THE ABOVE’’ ON BAL7 LOTS IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, in each election for Federal office there shall 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4498 IH

1 be included on the ballot a separate line, after the names 

2 of all candidates, as follows: 

‘‘ None of the Above ................................................................................. ø¿’’. 

3 (b) PROCEDURES.—Any voter may vote for ‘‘None of 

4 the Above’’ in the same manner as for a candidate. If 

5 ‘‘None of the Above’’ receives the most votes, a new elec6 tion shall be held not less than 20 days and not more than 

7 30 days after the results of the first election are certified. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

 44

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
COVOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                             List of Subsidiaries &
                                  Jurisdiction


     Name                                   Organization

     Utah Synfuel #1, L.P.                  Delaware limited partnership

     Alabama Synfuel #1, L.P.               Delaware limited partnership

     Flat Ridge Corporation                 Utah corporation

     Commonwealth Synfuel, L.L.C.           Utah limited liability company

     Carbon Synfuel, L.L.C.                 Utah limited liability company

     Pocahontas Synfuel, L.L.C.             Utah limited liability company

     Mountaineer Fuels, L.L.C.              Utah limited liability company

     Synfuel Investments, Inc.              Utah corporation
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.5

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


                  KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Eric W. Golden, Bobby G. Jenkins and Barry F.
Schwartz or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the PANAVISION INC. (the
"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and
on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or
officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any
instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the
Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including this power of
attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable
securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents
this 3rd day of February 2003.



                                            /S/ JAMES R. MAHER
                                            ------------------------------
                                            James R. Maher
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KATHLEEN HONEYCUTT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-818

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. 

Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 11) 

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on December 21, 2018, submitted a Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 11). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its

entirety. Accordingly: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/17/19 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-31317

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD A. DYER, also known as Blabber,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(98-CR-57)

 

July 23, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After defendant Donald Dyer appealed his sentence for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, this court

vacated and remanded for resentencing. Dyer appeals again,

challenging various aspects of his resentencing. We affirm.

I

Dyer first contends that the district court erred in employing

a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in making factual findings
1 United States v. Hill, 2001 WL 788613, *2 (5th Cir. July 11, 2001).

2

for sentencing purposes. Dyer contends that the district court

should have employed the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.

Dyer has waived this issue by failing to argue it on his original

appeal in this case. In any case, Dyer is wrong. The standard is

preponderance of the evidence.1

II

Dyer argues that the district court violated his Fifth

Amendment right to remain silent by basing his sentence on the fact

that Dyer’s involvement in the uncharged murders was “unexplained.”

Even if the district court committed error, the passing reference

to “unexplained involvement” could be nothing more than harmless

error. The district court had found at the initial sentencing that

Dyer was involved in the murders. This court upheld that factual

determination in the first appeal. Thus, the district court’s

comment could be nothing more than gratuitous, since the fact of

Dyer’s involvement had already been found.

III

Dyer contends that the district court erred in basing its

upward departure on his involvement in two prior, uncharged

murders. He argues that section 4A1.3(e) of the Sentencing

Guidelines allows consideration of criminal conduct not resulting

in a conviction only when such conduct is “similar” to the offense
2 See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(e).

3 See United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 578 n.21 (5th Cir. 2000)

(noting “general rule” that “claims cannot be brought on direct appeal absent

their having been raised adequately in the district court”). Dyer also contends

that the district court erroneously based the upward departure on a cross

reference to the murder guideline U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, as authorized in some

circumstances by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1). The district court, however, did not

base its upward departure on § 2A1.1 and § 2D1.1(d)(1) but on § 4A1.3. This

claim has no merit.

3

of conviction.2 Dyer failed to make this argument to the district

court. Thus, we choose not to address it on appeal.3

IV

The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.