alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4(iv)

ROSS MILLER
Secretary of State
204 North Carson Street, Ste 1
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4299
(775) 684-5708
Website: secretaryofstate.biz

           AMENDMENT TO
   CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
AFTER ISSUANCE OF CLASS OR SERIES
      (Pursuant to NRS 78.1955)

USE BLACK INK ONLY-DO NOT HIGHLIGHT         ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
                         FOR NEVADA PROFIT CORPORATIONS
          (PURSUANT TO NRS 78.1955- AFTER ISSUANCE OF CLASS OR SERIES)

1.   NAME OF CORPORATION:

International Building Technologies Group, Inc.

2.   STOCKHOLDER APPROVAL PURSUANT TO STATUTE HAS BEEN OBTAINED.

3.   THE CLASS OR SERIES OF STOCK BEING AMENDED:

Preferred Series C Stock

4.   BY A  RESOLUTION  ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF  DIRECTORS,  THE  CERTIFICATE  OF
     DESIGNATION IS BEING AMENDED AS FOLLOWS OR THE NEW CLASS OR SERIES IS:

Everything  remains the same as the original  filing of Preferred Stock Series C
(see attached Exhibit A) with the following  amendments to Section 2 items b and
g:

b. Authorized shares of Series C Preferred Stock: 1,000,000
g. Mandatory  Redemption Rights:  Upon written request from the Company,  Holder
agrees to convert  each  Preferred  Series C Stock to $5.00 worth of INGB Common
Stock on a mandatory basis.

5.   EFFECTIVE DATE OF FILING (OPTIONAL):

6.   OFFICER SIGNATURE (REQUIRED): X /s/ Kenneth Yeung

FILING FEE: $175.00
IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper
fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136859 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136859 

 COA: 280024 

Genesee CC: 98-002306-FC 

DEXTER DURRELL COOPER,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 27, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that order of the Court of Appeals and 

REINSTATE the stay imposed by the Court of Appeals on August 27, 2007. 

CAVANAGH, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal because she does not believe that the stay 

should be reinstated. 

p0729 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2008 

 Clerk
TOWN OF BALL, LOUISIANA, petitioner, v. Thomas R. HOWELL, et al.

No. 16-631.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2009180EN.01002901.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/29

---

Action brought on 15 May 2009 — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-176/09)

2009/C 180/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent and P. Kinsch, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Delete, in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (1), the following phrase: ‘and to the airport with the highest passenger movement in each Member State’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Delete, in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (1), the following phrase: ‘and to the airport with the highest passenger movement in each Member State’;

1

| — | Alternatively, annul the directive in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, annul the directive in its entirety;

| — | Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg raises two pleas in support of its action.

By its first plea, the applicant alleges a breach of the principle of non discrimination in so far as an airport such as that of Luxembourg-Findel, as a result of the extension of the scope of Directive 2009/12/EC to airports ‘with the highest passenger movement in each Member State’, finds itself subject to administrative and financial obligations which other airports in a comparable situation are able to avoid, without such difference in treatment being objectively justified. The applicant invokes in particular, in that regard, the situation of Hahn and Charleroi airports, serving the same catchment area as Findel airport and each generating a higher volume of passengers than Findel, but which are not subject to the same obligations. The existence of borders between the three airports can in no way justify that they be treated differently.

By its second plea, the applicant claims furthermore that the provision at issue does not comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. First, action at European level is not necessary so as to regulate a situation which could perfectly well have been regulated at national level as long as the threshold of 5 million passengers is not reached. Secondly, the application of the directive would result in supplementary procedures and costs which are not justified for an airport such as Findel, which has the sole particularity of having the highest passenger movement in a Member State, without that having a real relevance with regard to the objectives of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11.

1

---
NEW PRIME INC., petitioner, v. Dominic OLIVEIRA.

No. 17-340.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.
# C_2012258EN.01001602.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri)

(Case T-279/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Notification of the opposing party’s pleading before the Board of Appeal - Rules 50(1), 20(2) and 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rights of the defence)

2012/C 258/26

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antonino Aiello (Vico Equense, Italy) (represented by: M. Coccia and L. Pardo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2009 (Case R 1148/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Cantoni ITC SpA and Antonino Aiello.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 April 2009 (Case R 1148/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 April 2009 (Case R 1148/2008-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
R. Wayne PATTERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES SENATE, et al.

No. 16-568.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 10.43





FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ENGLOBAL 401(K) PLAN





WHEREAS , ENGlobal Engineering, Inc. (the "Employer") adopted a restatement of the ENGlobal 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"), effective as of January 1, 2010; and





WHEREAS , the Employer has the ability to amend the Plan pursuant to Article 11.1; and





WHEREAS , the Employer now desires to amend the Plan to recognize prior service with Control Dynamics International, LP (CDI).  NOW, THEREFORE,





RESOLVED , that the Company hereby amends the Plan in the following respects, effective as of April 1, 2010:





RESOLVED FURTHER , that Section 2.2 of the Adoption Agreement is amended as follows:





2.2  Predecessor Service. Service with the following entity or entities will be credited as:





|  |                                         
|- | ----------------------------------------
|• | Triangle Engineers & Constructors, Inc.;

|  |                       
|- | ----------------------
|• | RPM Engineering, Inc.;

|  |                             
|- | ----------------------------
|• | Petrocon of Louisiana, Inc.;

|  |                                    
|- | -----------------------------------
|• | Constant Power Manufacturing, Inc.;

|  |                       
|- | ----------------------
|• | IDS Engineering, Inc.;

|  |                                       
|- | --------------------------------------
|• | Alliance Engineering Associates, Inc.;

|  |                                    
|- | -----------------------------------
|• | Advanced Control Engineering, Inc.;

|  |       
|- | ------
|• | ESD&C;

|  |     
|- | ----
|• | ATI;

|  |                                         
|- | ----------------------------------------
|• | Control Dynamics International, LP (CDI)




(a)  Elective Deferrals, QMACs and QNECs. Service with an entity listed above will be given for eligibility purposes under Section 3.2(a) of the Adoption Agreement.





(d)  Non-Safe Harbor Matching Contributions. Service with an entity listed above will be credited for:


Eligibility purposes under Section 3.2(d) of the Adoption Agreement


Vesting purposes under Section 10.4 of the Adoption Agreement





RESOLVED FURTHER , that in all other respects, the terms of the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed.





RESOLVED FURTHER , that any action taken by any of the officers of the Company prior to the adoption of these resolutions that is within the authority conferred herein be, and it hereby is, ratified, confirmed and approved.





1
John BERRON, et al., petitioners, v. ILLINOIS CONCEALED CARRY LICENSING REVIEW BOARD, et al.

No. 16-659.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



              TELEPHONE RULING ON GREENLAND/SEREN MATTER OF 11/2/00

The preliminary injunction is denied. The Plaintiff has failed to establish the
probability of success on the merits of this claim. Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint focuses on the November 26, 1998 agreement; however, that agreement,
by its expressed terms, expired one year later. The agreement required that
modifications or amendments be in writing, signed by both parties. The Plaintiff
has offered no writing establishing an extension of the November 1998 agreement.
On this motion, Plaintiff has submitted insufficient evidence to establish that
it is the owner of the software and related technology.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 6, 2022

No. 04-22-00112-CV

John CLARK,

Appellant

v.

Maria Elzbieta CLARK,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-20250

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due May 19, 2022, but it was not filed. On June 1, 2022, the 

court reporter filed a notification of late record, stating the reporter’s record was not filed 

because appellant had failed to pay or to make arrangements to pay the court reporter’s fee for 

preparing the record and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We 

therefore order appellant to provide written proof to this court stating either (1) the reporter’s fee 

has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is 

entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee by June 16, 2022. If appellant fails to 

respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the 

date of this order, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s 

brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of June, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Gillian HARPER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6600.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
1

Summary Information as of September 17, 2007, 

on Exempt Commercial Markets That Have Filed a Notification under section 2(h)(3)-(5) of CEA

ACTIVE 

Name of ECM Product(s) Has Contract(s) 

That Meet the 5 

Trades/Day 

Reporting 

Threshold? 

Offers Clearing? 

Identity of Clearing 

Organization 

Remarks 

Intercontinental 

Exchange, Inc. 

Energy 

products, 

emissions, 

metals and 

other types of 

power-related 

commodities. 

Yes Yes, The Clearing 

Corporation and 

LCH Clearnet 

In July 2007, ICE 

acquired 

ChemConnect, Inc., 

which was an active 

ECM for energy 

products. 

Natural Gas 

Exchange, Inc. 

Natural gas 

and electricity 

Yes No 

HoustonStreet 

Exchange, Inc. 

Crude oil No Yes, NYMEX 

ClearPort Clearing 

ICAP 

Electronic 

Trading 

Community 

Natural gas No Yes, NYMEX 

ClearPort Clearing 

and LCH Clearnet 

International 

Maritime 

Exchange 

Freight rates No Yes, NOS Clearing 

ASA 

NetThruPut 

Inc. 

Crude oil and 

condensate 

commodities 

No Yes, NTP 

Exchange 

Chicago 

Climate 

Exchange, Inc. 

Emission 

allowances 

No No. In discussions 

with The Clearing 

Corporation 

ICAP 

Commodity and 

Commodity 

Derivatives 

Trading System 

Energy 

products and 

emission 

allowances 

No No 
2

PREPARING TO LAUNCH 

Name of ECM Product(s) Has Contract(s) 

That Meet the 5 

Trades/Day 

Reporting 

Threshold? 

Offers Clearing? 

Identity of Clearing 

Organization 

Remarks 

GFI Group Energy 

products and 

emission 

allowances 

No Yes, NYMEX 

ClearPort Clearing, 

LCH Clearnet, and 

The Clearing 

Corporation 

GFI subsidiary 

Energy Matchcurrently offers 

voice brokerage 

services 

ICAP Hyde 

Limited 

Trading System 

Forward 

freight 

agreements 

No No Plan to launch liquid 

forward freight 

agreements during 

week of 9/17/07 

Nodel 

Exchange, LLC 

Electricity 

derivatives 

No No 

TFS Energy, 

LLC 

Weather 

derivatives 

No No 

TradeCapture Energy 

products, 

weather 

indices, and 

emission 

allowances 

No Completed 

agreement with 

NYMEX ClearPort 

Clearing

Tradition 

Financial 

Services Pulp 

and Paper 

Division 

Pulp and 

paper 

No No 
3

NO LONGER OPERATING 

Name of ECM Product(s) Has Contract(s) 

That Meet the 5 

Trades/Day 

Reporting 

Threshold? 

Offers Clearing? 

Identity of Clearing 

Organization 

Remarks 

Optionable, Inc. Energy 

products 

Began during the 

first quarter of 

2007 

Yes, NYMEX 

ClearPort Clearing 

Very little activity in 

July-August; no 

activity expected in 

September. 

Commodities 

Derivative 

Exchange, Inc. 

Metals No No 

Spectron 

Live.com 

Limited 

Liquefied 

petroleum gas 

No No 

TradeSpark, LP Energy 

products, 

weather 

indices, and 

emission 

allowances 

No No 

Flett Exchange Energy 

products and 

uranium 

No Yes. NYMEX 

ClearPort Clearing 

and LCH. Clearnet
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Martin Quinn, as Chief Executive Officer and President of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
Horace E. HOLLIS, Jr., petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 17-7110.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division denied.
Joseph G. CUA, petitioner, v. Neil McDOWELL, Warden.

No. 16-6007.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an
Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, John F. Fisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

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.



Date: July 12, 2006                               By: /s/ John F. Fisbeck
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  John F. Fisbeck,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
II-O0030

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Victoria Steele <bluestone222@hotmail.com>

Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:53 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Victoria Steele

216 S Rush #D

Prescott, AZ 86303
# C_2009141EN.01003302.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/33

---

Action brought on 21 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-141/09)

2009/C 141/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and J. Sénéchal, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, (1) and in particular Articles 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9(2), 13 and 16 thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, (1) and in particular Articles 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9(2), 13 and 16 thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2005/56/EC expired on 14 December 2007. At the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified those measures to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2010063EN.01004404.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/44

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-126/09) (1)

1

2010/C 63/74

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---