alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3.4

                      AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS OF

                     THE AUTOLINE GROUP, INC.


          The following amendment to the Bylaws of The Autoline Group, Inc.
was adopted by unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of the Company on
the 18th day of June, 2004:

          Section 2.11   Written Consent to Action by Shareholders.  Any
action which may be taken at any annual or special meeting of stockholders may
be taken without a meeting and without prior notice, if one or more consents
in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders
of outstanding shares having not less than the minimum number of votes that
would be necessary to authorize or take the action at a meeting at which all
shares entitled to vote thereon were entitled to be present and to vote.

          I, Burke Staker, Secretary of The Autoline Group, Inc., hereby
certify that the foregoing Amendment to the Bylaws of The Autoline Group, Inc.
was duly adopted by resolution of the Board of Directors on the 18th day of
June, 2004.



                              /s/Burke Staker
                              Burke Staker
Clear All

        05 March 2022    

#                     2022 SEABEE BIRTHDAY BALL                  

                Thank you, Lore (RDML Aguayo), for the kind introduction - and let me start off by saying, ‘Happy Birthday’ Seabees! You don’t look a day over 80 years old!             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 32 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 32 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
(October 15, 1987)

#### Mary A. Murray, Respondent, v State Liquor Authority et al., Appellants.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J., on the order and judgment; Alfred J. Callahan, J., on the decision), entered February 2, 1987, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment and declared in her favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the motion court’s determination that rule 36 (t) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 53.1 [t]) represents an unauthorized and invalid exercise by the Authority of its rule-making power, since nowhere in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which contains specific and particularized grants of authority to promulgate rules with respect to certain subjects *(Rotunno v City of Rochester,*120 AD2d 160, 163), does there appear any delegation of power to the Authority to adopt rules or regulations prohibiting gambling with respect to off-premises licensees. Absent such delegation, the Authority may not assume such general rule-making power.

We disagree, however, with the motion court’s finding that rule 36 (t), as promulgated, is vague with respect to its description of the type of machines that are prohibited. In that respect, the rule could not be clearer. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1253** 

In r e: ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ( 2:10

- cr - 00096

- MSD

- TEM

- 2 )

Submitted : May 19 , 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Angelo Galloway , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Angelo Galloway petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing a district judge to docket his pro se ethics grievance a gainst a federal prosecutor
. We conclude that Galloway is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic rem edy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U . S
. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. T he district court’s docket reveals that Galloway’s grievance was received by the district court and referred for investigation. To the extent Galloway seeks additional relief by way of his mandamus petition, he fails to demonstrate a clear right to such relief. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### Michael Mendelson et al., Respondents, v Marie M. Adler et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated August 30, 1985, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This action arises from several disputes as to the rights of the parties under certain leases, lease renewal options, and purchase options pertaining to a medical arts building located in Port Jefferson Station. The leases and options were entered into between the plaintiffs, who are doctors, and Murray Adler, the predecessor in interest of the defendant Marie M. Adler.

The first dispute arose in January 1983 when, in response to the plaintiffs Mendelson and Rosenthal giving untimely written notice of their exercise of the lease renewal option, Mickey Adler, the then successor in interest to Murray Adler, informed Mendelson and Rosenthal that he deemed them to be month-to-month tenants and elected to terminate their tenancy as of March 1, 1983. However, Mendelson and Rosenthal continued to remain on the premises despite the uncertain status of their tenancy. The second dispute arose in October 1983 when all three plaintiffs informed the defendant Adler that they were exercising their options to purchase the build*616ing in accordance with their respective option agreements. Adler refused to sell to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs commenced this action by summons dated December 28, 1983. Thereafter, the defendant Adler sold the building to the defendant Triport, Inc. (hereinafter Triport). Triport then made an offer to sell the building to the plaintiffs, which was rejected by the plaintiffs as inconsistent with the proposed contracts of sale that they had been given with their options to purchase.

The contentions raised by the plaintiffs at Special Term in opposition to the defendant Adler’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her are sufficient to establish the existence of triable issues of fact. The triable issues include whether the purchase options entered into between the plaintiffs and Murray Adler, which do not explicitly state that the plaintiffs must be tenants pursuant to the lease in order to exercise the options, must be interpreted as though they explicitly so state, whether the plaintiff Hiller had power to exercise his purchase option so as to excuse noncompliance, if any, by Mendelson and Rosenthal with the terms of their purchase option, and whether the rejection by the plaintiffs of Triport’s offer to sell constitutes a repudiation of whatever rights the plaintiffs had to purchase the building. In light of the existence of these triable issues of fact, the denial of the defendant Adler’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her was correct. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

****

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”), I,Charles N. Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

            (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                       of the Exchange Act; 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/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                      Charles N. Martin, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2005
Clear All

        11 April 2024    

                    USS Gunston Hall Returns Home After NATO Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024                 
                The Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) returned home to Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, April 11, following Steadfast Defender 2024, NATO’s largest exercise in decades.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Emerita Lara

Plaintiffs,

- against -

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

et al. (see Defendants’ List)

Defendants.

Index No.: 07cv05365 (AKH)

NOTICE OF THE NOMURA

PARTIES’ ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

_________________________

1:21-MC-00102

----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA PARTIES (Nomura

Holding America Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc.) as and for their responses to

the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) related to

the Master Complaint filed herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby

adopts all of the responses and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer

to the Master Complaint dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In re World Trade Center

Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the

allegations in the Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the CheckOff Complaint served and filed herein.

Case 1:07-cv-05365-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLAEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand therein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Case 1:07-cv-05365-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
Dated: September 14, 2007

New York, New York

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/ Dror M. Bikel

________________________________

Dror M. Bikel, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC.

50 Broadway, Suite 2003

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:07-cv-05365-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
10.1


 


Executive Officers 2006 Annual Incentive Program

under the Dade Behring 2004 Incentive Compensation Plan


 


 


	
  2006 Annual Incentive
  Target Percent 

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  120% for the CEO

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  75% for each other
  executive officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2006 Annual Incentive
  Target Amount 

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  120% of December 31, 2006
  Annual Base Salary for the CEO

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  75% of December 31, 2006
  Annual Base Salary for each other executive officer

  



 


The 2006 annual incentive program will be
funded (in the percentages indicated) with a maximum of $3,000,000 for the CEO,
1,200,000 Euros for one executive officer and $1,200,000 for each of the other
executive officers upon achievement of the financial measures established for
each of the following:


 


	
  -

  	
  Earnings Per Share (50%)

  
	
  -

  	
  Cash Flow (20%)

  
	
  -

  	
  EBITDA (earnings before
  interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) (20%); and

  
	
  -

  	
  Revenue Growth (10%)

  



 


Each financial measure funds independently
from the others and the Program will be fully funded only if all four financial
measures are achieved.


 


The calculation with respect to sixty percent
of each potential bonus amount is based upon a comparison of actual performance
for such financial measures to target objectives established for such financial
measures.


 


The award related to the remaining forty
percent of the potential bonus is based upon individual performance as
evaluated and determined by the Compensation Committee in the case of the CEO
and as evaluated by the CEO and finally determined by the Compensation
Committee in the case of each other executive officer.


 


Bonus calculation will be adjusted, either
increased or decreased, pursuant to the program criteria.  The final bonus award will be based upon this
calculation and this final bonus award may be adjusted, but not increased, at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee.
#### STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel., etc., et al. v. DESLOGE CONSOL. LEAD CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 6, 1922.)

No. 5961.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.

O. L. Munger, of Piedmont, Mo., Thomas Mathews, of Flat River, Mo., and P. H. Cullen, R. T. Finley, F. M. Curlee, and Charles M. Hay, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants. Edward A. Rozier, of Bonne Terre, Mo., ánd Robert A. Holland, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, with costs, on motion of appellee.
#### In the Matter of Galcombe, Inc., Doing Business as KC Gallagher’s, Respondent, v New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated August 18, 1987, suspending the petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for 10 days, with three days remitted due to the petitioner’s plea of no contest, and requiring the forfeiture of $1,000 on its bond, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated January 4, 1988, which vacated the penalty imposed by the respondent and remitted the matter for the issuance of a new penalty.

Ordered that on the court’s own motion the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, the application is referred to Justice Brown and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Brown *(see,*CPLR 5701 [b] [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by adding to the end of the decretal paragraph thereof the following: "the penalty is not to exceed a suspension of the petitioner’s license for a 10-day period less a three-day remission”; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements *(see, Matter of PJP Tavern Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*152 AD2d 578; *Matter of La Cucina Mary Ann v State Liq. Auth.,*150 AD2d 450; *Matter of Idlewild Rest. Tavern v State Liq. Auth.,*146 AD2d 629; *Matter of MNDN Rest, v Gazzara,*128 AD2d 781). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
DOCSNY-287506 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

PEDRO TAMAYO (AND WIFE, GABRIELLA 

TAMAYO), 

 Plaintiffs, 

 - against - 

4101 AUSTIN BLVD CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-01538-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 January 18, 2008 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen 

______________________________________ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 40 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 1
DOCSNY-267193v01 

Robert J. Higgins, Esq. (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen, Esq. (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman, Esq. (KF-3635) 

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-2714 

(212) 277-6500 

Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

MIGUEL URGILES (AND WIFE, MARTHA 

URGILES), 

 Plaintiffs, 

 - against - 

ALAN KASMAN DBA KASCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-5400-AKH 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION 

OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

BY MERRILL LYNCH 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill 

Lynch”), as and for its responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption 

(Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, 

hereby adopts Merrill Lynch’s Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 3, 2007, which was 

filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 

MC 102 (AKH). 

Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
2 

DOCSNY-267193v01 

WHEREFORE, Merrill Lynch demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 September 14, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

/s/ Judith R. Cohen______________________ 

Robert J. Higgins (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman (KF-3635) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0478

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSIAH BRACKETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including December 24, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2023

11/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0478
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,439-01

EX PARTE RAYMOND OSCAR ROBLEDO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W15-00555-W(A) IN THE 363RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., filed a dissenting and concurring opinion in which WALKER,

J., joined.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder

and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. Applicant has

alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984);

Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369

(Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte
2

Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for

findings of fact. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. The trial

court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent him at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied his right to a meaningful appeal because trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of

appeal. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it

deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 20, 2019

Do not publish