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

                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

DEAN HELLER                                                      Document Number
Secretary of State                                                20050091661-20
206 North Carson Street                                     Filing Date and Time
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4299                             3/30/2005 11:42:47 AM
(775) 684 5708                                                     Entity Number
Website: secretaryofstate.biz                                      E0160302005-8

                                                          Filed in the office of

                                                          /s/ Dean Heller
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT                                  DEAN HELLER
(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.380)                                  Secretary of State
                                                          State of Nevada

                                              ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

              Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
                         For Nevada Profit Corporations
               (Pursuant to NRS 78.380 - Before Issuance of Stock)

1. Name of Corporation:

   OnePak, Inc.

2. The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
   available):

     Article 3 amended as follows:

     Increase number of authorized shares from: 1500 (one thousand five hundred)
     at no par value to: 100,000,000 (one hundred million) at a par value of
     $0.001.

3. The undersigned declare that they constitute at least two-thirds of the
   incorporators [X], or of the board of directors [ ]. (check one box only)

4. Effective date of filing (optional) Immediate

5. The undersigned affirmatively declare that to the date of this certificate,
   no stock of the corporation has been issued.

6. Signature


/s/ Steven Andon
-------------------------
Signature
#### Marie T. PEYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a California corporation, its successors and assigns, now known as Sand Canyon Corporation; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for HSI Asset Securitization Corporation trust 2006-OPT3, Mortgage Pass-Though Certificates, Series 2006-OPT3; Does, 1-30, Defendants-Appellees.

*651No. 11-17775

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 24, 2017 * Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed March 22, 2017

Gary Victor Dubin, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Dubin Law Offices, Honolulu, HI, Frederick John Arensmeyer, Esquire, Law Office of Frederick Arensmeyer, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jade Lynne Ching, Attorney, Nakashi-ma Ching LLC, Honolulu, HI, Lori K. Stibb, Alston Hunt Floyd *&*Ing, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

1. A borrower has a right to rescind a home mortgage transaction “until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). But, if the lender fails to disclose this rescission right, the right can instead be exercised for three years. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.28(a)(3). The Peytons signed a document stating that they “RECEIVED TWO (2) COMPLETED COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY LAW.” This evidence creates a presumption that the Peytons received the appropriate disclosures and are not entitled to the three-year extension. See 15 U.S.C; § 1635(c). The Peytons presented no admissible evidence to rebut the presumption and extend the rescission period. Their rescission claims were. thus time-barred, and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants.

2. The district court did not abuse its .discretion by denying the Peytons’ motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 380-82 (9th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio GONZALEZ-ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50495

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Laura M. Grimes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rebecca Jones, Rebecca P. Jones, Attorney at law PC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Artemio Gonzalez-Andrade appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Andrade contends that the district court erred in failing to give a voluntary intoxication instruction sua sponte. As Gonzalez-Andrade acknowledges, we review this claim for plain error. *See United States v. Bear,*439 F.3d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 2006). Because the trial transcript does not reflect an evidentiary basis to conclude that Gonzalez-Andrade was intoxicated, much less sufficiently intoxicated as to be unable to form the specific intent to enter the United States, the district court did not plainly err in failing to give the instruction. *See United States v. Fejes,*232 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2000); *see also United States v. Washington,*819 F.2d 221, 225 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court did not err in failing to instruct on voluntary intoxication when testimony established that defendant’s behavior during the offense was inconsistent with intoxication).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3969

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District of * South Dakota. Jennifer Lee Knox, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 10, 2000 Filed: June 21, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Lee Knox, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, was charged with the second-degree murder, committed within Indian country, of Quanah Crow Dog in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and 18 U.S.C. § 1111. She was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 135 months' imprisonment. 12–

On appeal, Knox challenges her conviction as well as her sentence. Specifically, she asserts that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict; (2) the district court erred in not granting a mistrial when the prosecutor elicited improper testimony from witnesses in violation of her Fifth Amendment and due process rights; and (3) the district court erred in refusing to grant a downward departure from the applicable guidelines range on the basis of victim misconduct. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.10. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we find no reversible error. Because an extended discussion of the parties' arguments, which are fact-specific to this case, would serve no useful precedential purpose, we affirm Knox's conviction and sentence without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00042

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.X.R. AND M.S.R.,

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb Count y, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- FLD

- 000964

- D1 The Honorable Selina Nava Mireles, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This an appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. Appellant filed an amended motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief and then filed appellant’s brief a few days later . Appellant’s amended motion for extension of time is GRANTED. However, appellant’s brief identifies the parents involved in this appeal by full name and not by an alias

. Additionally, the appendix attached i dentifies not only the parents by their full nam e, but also identifies the minor children by name and discloses their dates of birth . We therefore STRIKE appellant’s brief and appendix and ORDER appellant to file a new appellant’s brief and appendix, appropriately redacted

, within three days of this ord er. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.8 , 9.9.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of March, 2020

.

___________________________________ MIC HAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11308 Conference Calendar

BRETT C. NORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-1018-G

-------------------- June 16, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Brett C. Norris, Texas prisoner # 659410, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 § U.S.C. 2254 application for a writ of habeas corpus, as barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Norris argues that the district court erred in failing to equitably toll the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) limitations period from April 24, 1996, the date that the AEDPA became effective, until April 1, 1997, the date that the prisonNo. 98-11308 -2- law library received copies of the new habeas law. Norris is not entitled to equitable tolling on that basis. See Felder v. Johnson , 204 F.3d 168, 171-73 (5th Cir. 2000)(holding that a prisoner’s actual ignorance of the AEDPA’s limitations period, even if attributable to the newly-enacted statute’s complete unavailability to inmates, does not serve as a basis for equitable tolling). The district court’s judgment dismissing Norris’s § 2254 application as time-barred is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
#### Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David ROBINSON; Curtis Wall; M. Vosburg; Unknown Hicks; M. Rook; Unknown Vargo; D. Wilmouth; Unknown Creque; C. Parker; Harold Clark; M. Forbes, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7357

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Eric L. Prosha, John King, Aaron Lewis, Peter Rosas, Ryan Sessoms, and Ray Watson, Appellants Pro Se,

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing the claims of Aaron Lewis and Momolu V.S. Sirleaf without prejudice, and ordering that individual actions be opened for Eric L. Pro-sha, John King, Peter Rosas, Ryan Ses-soms, and Ray Watson. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 546-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders that Appellants seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Additional meetings for EGU MACT Higgins, Cortney to: RobertJ Wayland 02/23/2011 04:57 PM Cc: Bill Maxwell

Hi Bob,

Can we set up times to discuss the following topics (an hour each should be sufficient). I’ve listed times that work for folks on our end.

1. Air Quality Modeling - 2/28: 9-10, 11-3 - 3/1: noon-1, 4-5 2. Employment Analysis - 2/28: 10-11, noon-1:30, 4:30-5:30 - 3/1: noon-1, 4-6

Additionally, the following items were discussed on today’s call and EPA was supposed to follow-up with information: - Documentation of 20 GW of expected retirement - A12 excerpt on productivity analysis - Employment literature for direct and indirect effects - Breakdown of costs by control equipment type (e.g. total cost for fabric filters) - Breakdown of the number of sources and capacity by control equipment type

Regards, Cortney
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52524-52525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20647]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9010-7]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 08/12/2013 Through 08/16/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
Notice:

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its 
comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html
EIS No. 20130244, Draft EIS, USFWS, CA, South Farallon Islands Invasive 
House Mouse Eradication Project, Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, 
Comment Period Ends: 09/30/2013, Contact: Gerry McChesney 510-792-0222, 
ext. 222. This document was inadvertently omitted from the FR Notice 
published 8/16/2013. The Comment Period will end 09/30/2013.
EIS No. 20130245, Final EIS, BR, CO, Arkansas Valley Conduit and Long-
Term Excess Capacity Master Contract, Review Period Ends: 09/23/2013, 
Contact: J. Signe Snortland 701-221-1278.
EIS No. 20130246, Draft EIS, USFS, NV, Greater Sage Grouse Bi-State 
Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment, Comment Period Ends: 
11/20/2013, Contact: James Winfrey 775-355-5308.
EIS No. 20130247, Final EIS, FHWA, LA, Interstate 69 Segment of 
Independent Utility 15, US 171 to I-20, Review Period Ends: 10/07/2013, 
Contact: Carl M. Highsmith 225-757-7615.
EIS No. 20130248, Final EIS, USDA, NC, ADOPTION--North Topsail Beach 
Shoreline Protection Project, Review Period Ends: 09/23/2013, Contact: 
Frank Mancino 202-720-1827. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural 
Housing Service has adopted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEIS 
20100025, filed 01/26/2010 with the USEPA. The Rural Housing 
Service was not a cooperating agency to this project. Recirculation of 
the document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b) of the Council on 
Environmental Quality Regulations.
EIS No. 20130249, Draft EIS, USACE, LA, West Shore Lake Pontchartrain 
Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction, Comment Period Ends: 10/07/
2013, Contact: William Klein 504-862-2540.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130237, Final EIS, NMFS, NJ, FEIS Amendment 14 to the 
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, 
Review Period Ends: 09/16/2013, Contact: Aja Szumylo 978-281-9195.
    Revision to FR Notice Published 08/16/2013; Correction to Review 
Period Ends: Change from 10/14/2013 to 09/16/2013.

[[Page 52525]]

    Dated: August 20, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-20647 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Bob AHMADI, also known as Robert Abraham Kennedy, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sergeant JONES; Katie Woods, Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney; George V. Mackey; Brian Downey, #327 Lakeside Police Officer; Deputy *234Brown; Deputy White; Deputy Tyler; Deputy Martinez; Deputy Sanchez; Doctor Tea; Detective Mendoza, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-11667 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 17, 2017

Bob Ahmadi, Pro Se

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bob Ahmadi, Texas prisoner # 624218, also known as Robert Abraham Kennedy, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he suffered numerous constitutional violations while detained at a jail facility in Tarrant County. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, reasoning that some defendants could not be liable under § 1983 and that other claims were untimely or barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

On appeal, Ahmadi attempts to raise new claims against defendants not named in his superseding First Amended Complaint. We do not consider these because they are made for the first time on appeal. *See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Ahmadi fails to preserve some of his other claims by failing to brief them. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). He fails to challenge the district court’s ruling that defendant Katie Woods was acting as a prosecutor and is absolutely immune from suit. *See Imbler v. Pachtman,*424 U.S. 409, 427-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (setting forth the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity); *see also Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue). Similarly, Ahmadi fails to contest the ruling that claims against defendant Jones are untimely and that claims against defendant detective Mendoza are barred by *Heck'*because they necessarily impugn the validity of the criminal conviction for which Ahmadi is imprisoned. *See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364; *Brinkmann,*813 F.2d at 748.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Order entered January 10, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00763-CV

THE FAN EXPO, LLC, Appellant

V.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC, NFL NETWORK 

SERVICES, INC. D/B/A NFL NETWORK, NFL DIGITAL MEDIA, AND NFL.COM,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-08119

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s January 9, 2017 third unopposed motion to extend 

time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date 

of this order.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        SOUTH SEAS PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNITS OUTSTANDING
                                                             EXHIBIT 99

The weighted average number of partnership units used in the 
computation of earnings per unit is as follows:

                                                    Three Months
                                           Ended March 31
                                                     1996         1997 
<S>                                               <C>           <C>
  Actual number of units
   outstanding at the beginning of the
      period                                        4,308,568   4,426,568

     Weighted average number of units issued
       during the period                                    0           0

     Weighted average number of units 
      outstanding during the period                  4,308,568   4,426,568

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**Subsidiaries      of Customer Acquisition Network Holdings, Inc.**

| **Subsidiary**                                       |   | **Ownership**                           |   | **Jurisdiction**                       |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| 1.                Desktop Acquisition Sub            |   | 100%                owned by Registrant |   | Delaware,                United States |
| 2.                Options Acquisition Sub, Inc.      |   | 100%                owned by Registrant |   | Delaware,                United States |
| 3.                Customer Acquisition Network, Inc. |   | 100%                owned by Registrant |   | Delaware,                United States |

----
Fw: RA authority

Lydia Wegman to: Tricia Crabtree 01/21/2010 11:38 PM

Meant to send this to you. 

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/21/2010 11:37PM -----

To: hking@omb.eop.gov

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 01/21/2010 11:31PM

cc: Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott 

Jenkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis 

Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Padmini Singh/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sara 

Schneeberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RA authority

Heidi,

I'm sorry this is so late in getting to you, but here it is at last. Please give me a call in the AM after you've 

had a chance to review it and let us know if we have agreement or if you have any comments. Thanks a 

lot.

Lydia