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

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                             AMENDED AND RESTATED

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                      OF

                              SYNC RESEARCH, INC.


         The undersigned hereby certifies that:

         1. He is the duly elected and acting Vice President of Finance and
Administration and Secretary of Sync Research, Inc. , a Delaware corporation.

         2. The Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation was originally
filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on September 12, 1995.

         3. Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware, this Certificate of Amendment adds the following paragraph to the
end of Article III of this corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation:

         "At 12:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on June 28, 1999, each outstanding
         share of this corporation's Common Stock shall be converted and
         reconstituted into 0.20 of a share of this corporation's Common Stock
         (the "COMMON REVERSE SPLIT"). In lieu of the issuance of fractional
         shares, this corporation shall pay to the holder thereof in cash an
         amount equal to the fraction of a share to which such holder is
         entitled after applying the Common Reverse Split to each certificate
         representing shares of Common Stock then held by such holder multiplied
         by the closing bid price of the corporation's Common Stock on June 28,
         1999. Shares of Common Stock that were outstanding prior to the Common
         Reverse Split, and that are not outstanding after and as a result of
         the Common Reverse Split, shall resume the status of authorized but
         unissued shares of Common Stock."

         4. The foregoing Certificate of Amendment has been duly adopted by this
corporation's Board of Directors and stockholders in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

         Executed at Irvine, California, June 25, 1999.

                                       /s/ William K. Guerry
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       William K. Guerry, Vice President of
                                       Finance and Administration and Secretary
#### NASH et al., Appellants, v. HALL SIGNAL CO. et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

December 18, 1895.)

Action by Abbie S. Nash and others against Hall Signal Company and others.

No opinion. Motion granted. See 32 N. Y. Supp. 701, 35 N. Y. Supp. 940.
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


regarding Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Acacia Diversified Holdings, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that, to our knowledge:





1.  The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2015, (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.  Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented herein.





Date:  April 25, 2016











By: /s/ Steven L. Sample


Steven L. Sample


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cotton Structure and Quality Research: New Orleans, LA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area New Orleans, Louisiana Southern Regional Research Center Cotton Structure and Quality Research People & Locations







Wayne  Swink
                        Cotton Structure and Quality Research

                        




                        
                        Physical Science Technician
                        Phone: (504) 286-4565
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent H. Waters, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), rendered May 31, 1984, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to have a petit jury “selected at random from a fair cross-section of the *616community” was not violated (Judiciary Law § 500; *People v Guzman,*60 NY2d 403, *cert denied*466 US 951). At his pretrial hearing, the defendant failed to show that blacks between the ages of 18 and 21 years old constituted a recognizable group in the community *(see, People v Chesler,*91 Misc 2d 551, *revd on other grounds*71 AD2d 792; *People v Rosado,*89 Misc 2d 61; *People v Attica Bros.,*79 Misc 2d 492; *see also, Barber v Ponte,*772 F2d 982 [en banc]), or that their underrepresentation in the jury pool was caused by systematic exclusion *(see, People v Guzman, supra).*While the county’s practice of soliciting the names and addresses of recent high school graduates to supplement its list of potential jurors drawn from other sources *(see,*Judiciary Law § 506) was concededly "poorly administered”, the hearing record also indicates that many high schools declined to respond to the solicitation, a factor which rebuts the appearance of intentional discrimination *(see, People v Guzman, supra).*

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur. *[See,*123 Misc 2d 1057.]
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), Robert Portman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on our knowledge:

1. 	     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. 	     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

This Certification shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

DATE:      November 15, 2005 

| By:    | /S/ ROBERT PORTMAN                    |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Robert Portman, Chairman of the Board |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

DATE:      November 15, 2005 

| By:    | /S/ STEPHEN P. KUCHEN                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Stephen P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer   |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

20

----
RULE 7.1 Page 1 of 1

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

email: carl@crowell-law.com

CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308

(503) 581-1240

Of attorneys for plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company, and

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas 

Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOE-71.59.242.21,

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:14-cv-1874 

PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE

PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, plaintiffs state they do not have a parent 

corporation and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of their stock.

DATED: November 22, 2014.

/s/ Carl D. Crowell

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

email: carl@crowell-law.com

(503) 581-1240

Of attorneys for plaintiffs

Case 3:14-cv-01874-AC Document 2 Filed 11/22/14 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1723 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1723

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise Form S-1 so 
 as to permit smaller reporting companies to use forward incorporation 
                      by reference for such form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2015

  Mrs. Wagner (for herself and Ms. Sewell of Alabama) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise Form S-1 so 
 as to permit smaller reporting companies to use forward incorporation 
                      by reference for such form.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Company Simple Registration 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. FORWARD INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE FOR FORM S-1.

    Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Securities and Exchange Commission shall revise Form S-1 so as to 
permit a smaller reporting company (as defined in section 230.405 of 
title 17, Code of Federal Regulations) to incorporate by reference in a 
registration statement filed on such form any documents that such 
company files with the Commission after the effective date of such 
registration statement.
                                 <all>
```
#### John B. WESTOVER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3062.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 27, 2007.

John B. Westover, pro se.

*990
      *ORDER*

Upon consideration of John B. West-over’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his petition for review,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Corvallis, Oregon
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







James  Armstrong
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Computer Assistant
                        Phone: (541) 841-4976
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ADAN MANUEL VALDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Mcshane, District Judge. 

1:15-cv-01626-MC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Oregon 

Department of Corrections filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, alleging that defendants violated his rights by beating 

him and opening his legal mail while he was incarcerated in 

the Jackson County Jail. 

Before the court is defendants' motion for summary 

judgment (#18). 

On September 9, 2016, plaintiff was sent a Summary 

Judgment Advice Notice advising him of the federal summary 

judgment standards and requirements. On September 29, 2016, 

1 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01626-MC Document 25 Filed 12/07/16 Page 1 of 3
plaintiff filed a "Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment" 

(#20). However, plaintiff's response argues matters that are 

not at issue in this case and pertain to a separate case he 

filed alleging that he was exposed to MRSA while incarcerated 

in the Jackson County Jail, That case, 1:14-cv-00258-MC was 

dismissed by Order (#82) and Judgment (#83) entered September 

22, 2016. Plaintiff has not filed a response on the merits to 

the motion for summary judgment before the court. 

The Declaration of Ryan Kirchoff and exhibits attached to 

defendants' motion establish that while incarcerated in the 

Jackson County Jail, plaintiff filed a grievance alleging that 

he had been beaten. An investigation that included interview 

of the people involved and a "video" of the incident did not 

support plaintiff's claim that he'd been assaulted and the 

grievance The incident report indicates that after threatening 

to "sucker punch" a deputy, plaintiff was placed in handcuffs 

and administrative segregation. 

he was "beaten." 

There was no evidence that 

There is nothing in the record before the court to 

support plaintiff's allegation that he was "beaten" or that 

his mail was opened or mishandled. 

Plaintiff's "bald assertions" unsupported by any facts or 

evidence are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary 

judgment. F.T.C. v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 294, 929 (9th Cir. 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01626-MC Document 25 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 of 3
2009) . 

There are no genuine issues of material fact regarding 

plaintiff's claims. Defendants are entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#18) 

is allowed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a 

judgment dismissing this proceeding. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this~- day of December, 2016. 

~----- l 

Michael Mcshane 

United States District Judge 

3 - ORDER 

7th

Case 1:15-cv-01626-MC Document 25 Filed 12/07/16 Page 3 of 3
#### TR-One, Inc., Appellant, v Lazz Development Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[945 NYS2d 416]—

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated April 4, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendants Lazz Development Co., Inc., and Louis Larizza for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 20, 2004, the plaintiff and the defendant Lazz Development Co., Inc. (hereinafter Lazz), entered into an agreement giving Lazz the exclusive right and option to buy property described as “approximately 48 acres of vacant land located at 89 Mount Tom Road, Pawling, New York.” The agreement explained that “[t]he exact size and location of the parcel subject to this option is located primarily in the Village of Pawling and is to be defined and determined by a Survey map to be obtained by Optionee [Lazz] at its expense and which description will be agreed upon by the parties and then added as an exhibit to the contract of sale.” The purchase price was set forth as a minimum of $1,600,000 with the ultimate price dependent on the future development of the property.

In order to satisfy the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703), a memorandum, subscribed by the party to be charged, must designate the parties, identify and describe the *1304subject matter, and state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement *(see Cohen v Swenson,*140 AD2d 407 [1988]; *Sahuman v Strauss,*139 AD2d 502 [1988]; *Sheehan v Culotta,*99 AD2d 544 [1984]).

The agreement was sufficiently detailed to identify the purchase price to be paid. Thus, the purchase price was not indefinite or vague *(see Cohen v Swenson,*140 AD2d 407 [1988]; *Birnhak v Vaccaro,*47 AD2d 915 [1975]). However, on the face of the agreement, it is impossible to identify the subject property with the degree of certainty necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds *(see Cooley v Lobdell,*153 NY 596 [1897]; *Cohen v Swenson,*140 AD2d 407 [1988]; *Israelson v Bradley,*139 NYS2d 107 [1954], *affd*285 App Div 971 [1955]).

By showing that the agreement was too vague to satisfy the statute of frauds, the defendants Lazz and Louis Larizza (hereinafter the respondents) made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of


Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Richard L. Bergmark, Chief Financial Officer of Core Laboratories N.V. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Report").





I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: October 22, 2009
/s/ Richard L. BergmarkName: Richard L. BergmarkTitle: Chief Financial Officer
#### Douglas *V.*O’Connell, Appellant, v Robert Tusa, Defendant, and Miguel Velasquez et al., Respondents.

[947 NYS2d *812134]

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated May 12, 2011, as, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Miguel Velasquez and Bruno Specialty Foods, Inc., and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants Miguel Velasquez and Bruno Specialty Foods, Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

At approximately 10:00 a.m. on October 27, 2005, the plaintiff was driving his vehicle southbound on Hicksville Road in Bethpage. While waiting to make a left turn, his vehicle was hit in the rear by a vehicle operated by Vernon Porterfield, now deceased. The impact pushed the plaintiffs vehicle into the opposite lane of traffic and into the path of a truck operated by the defendant Miguel Velasquez and leased by his employer, the defendant Bruno Specialty Foods, Inc. The truck collided with the plaintiffs vehicle, pushing it back into the southbound lane where it struck the Porterfield vehicle. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action and the case proceeded to a jury trial on the issue of liability. The jury determined that Porterfield was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident. In the judgment appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, upon the denial of the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Velasquez and Bruno Specialty Foods, Inc. The plaintiff appeals, and we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see v Baltic Estates, Inc.,*90 AD3d 737 [2011]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Here, the jury verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see v Baltic Estates, Inc.,*90 AD3d 737 [2011]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE v. BRAUNE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 24, 1896.)

Action by the people against Otto Braune.

No opinion. Motion granted.