alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 3.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             PROTOKOPOS CORPORATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     PROTOKOPOS  CORPORATION,  a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue  of  the  General  Corporation  Law  of  the  State  of  Delaware:

     DOES  HEREBY  CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  The  following resolution has been unanimously adopted by the board
     ------
of directors and a majority of the stockholders of the Corporation in accordance
with  Section  242  of  the  Delaware General Corporation Law for the purpose of
amending the corporation's Certificate of Incorporation.  The resolution setting
forth  the  proposed  amendment  is  as  follows:

               RESOLVED,  that  the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of  the
     Corporation  be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered "FIRST" so
     that,  as  amended,  said  Article  shall  be  and  read  as  follows:

     FIRST:  The  name  of  the  corporation  is Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc.
     -----

     SECOND:  That  said  amendment  was  duly  adopted  in  accordance with the
     -------
     provisions  of  Section  242  of  the General Law of the State of Delaware.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF, PROTOKOPOS CORPORATION has caused this certificate to
be  signed  by  its  duly  authorized  officer  this  16th  day of January 1998.


PROTOKOPOS  CORPORATION



/s/  Harry  M.  Neer
--------------------------------
Harry M. Neer, President



<PAGE>
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 26,
2009, of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew F. Puzder,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section
      78o(d)); and





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





In
witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as
of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





Date:
March 25,
2009





/s/AndrewF.PuzderAndrew F. PuzderChief
      Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 7/11/1998; THE CONDENSED 
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 36 WEEKS ENDED 7/11/1998; AND THE 
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE 36 WEEKS ENDED 7/11/1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-11-1998
<CASH>                                           7,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                       959
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,206
<PP&E>                                          43,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,160
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,858
<SALES>                                        430,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               431,804
<CGS>                                          335,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  417,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (267)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   564
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,541
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,017
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,159

EX PARTE FREDERICK VICTOR DASCO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1133661 IN THE 351

ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

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

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

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

register as a sex offender and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in TDCJ-ID. He did not

appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because he was improperly admonished

for a third degree felony and his sentence is illegal because he was sentenced outside the proper

punishment range for a state jail felony. 

The trial court has determined that Applicant was improperly admonished and sentenced
2

for a third degree felony instead of a state jail felony and therefore his plea was involuntary.

Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 1133661 in the 351 Judicial District Court st

of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Harris

County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: June 3, 2009

Do Not Publish
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [WY-920-1310-01; WYW146280] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW146280 from Gulf Exploration LLC for lands in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW146280 effective October 1, 2004, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.                 

Pamela J. Lewis,

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. 05-18461 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
STATE v. Terrance Javarr ROSS.

No. 297PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 22, 2016.

Peter Wood, Attorney at Law, for Ross, Terrance Javarr.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 22nd of February 2016 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of February 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 14th day of March 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
THEATTORNEYGENERAI. 

June 6, 1962 

Honorable Jerry Dellana Opinion No. WW-1343 

County Attorney 

Travis County Courthouse Re: Legality under Article 654, 

Austin, Texas V.P.C.; of giving a valuable 

prize by means of a drawing 

Dear Mr. Dellana: under the facts submitted. 

You have requested an opinion as to the legality 

under Article 654 of Vernon's Penal Code of a plan described 

by you as follows: 

"Facts: A merchant desires to give away a 

central air-conditioning unit at the opening of a new store and office; it is not 

necessary for the registrant to be present 

to win nor to buy anything frcm the store 

to register, but limits the registrants to 

the following: 

" 1 . 

"2 . 

"3 . 

"4 . 

That only one member of a family may 

register at one time. 

That the registrant own a home in 

Travis County, Texas. 

That the unit will be installed in a 

single family residence only, the condenser being not less than two ton 

capacity and not greater than five ton 

capacity. 

That no employees or their immediate 

family may participate." 

Article 6.54, Vernon's Penal Code, prohibits the establishment and operation of a lottery, and the disposition 

of property by lottery, but does not define a lottery. The 

courts have, therefore, adopted a definition based upon the 

term "lottery" and it is well established that three things 

must occur to constitute an advertising scheme a lottery 

and these are: (a) A prize or prizes; (b) the award or 

distribution of the prize or prizes by chance; (c) the payment, either directly or indirectly, by the participant of 
Hon. Jerry Dellana Page 2 Opinion No. WW-1343 

a consideration for the right or privilege of participating. 

Cole v. State, 112 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Crim.l937), Brice v. 

State, 242 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim. 1951), Smith v. State,1274 

md 297 (Tex.Crim. 1939). 

Assuming the facts as you have given them, it is 

clear that no purchase must be made to become eligible to 

win the prize if selected, hence there is no consideration 

paid by the participant. The Court of Criminal Appeals in 

Brice v. State holds that the going into a store and registering does not constitute the payment of consideration,even 

though the donor may receive a benefit from the drawing in 

the way of advertising. Such being the case, in our opinion 

this plan is not a lottery because of the lack of consideration. 

SUMMARY 

The advertising plan does not constltute a lottery under the facts submitted 

because of the absence of consideration. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attornev General of Texas 

BY 

Charles R. Lind 

Assistant Attorney General 

CRL:sh 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Pat Bailey 

Vernon Teofan 

Jay Howell 

Milton Richardson 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Leonard Passmore
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 770/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 770/2014 of 11 July 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for greater silver smelt in Union            waters of III and IV by vessels flying the flag of Ireland         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 770/2014                     

# of 11 July 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for greater silver smelt in Union waters of III and IV by vessels flying the flag of                        Ireland                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 July 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3771 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash 

contributions for the relief of victims of the Typhoon 

Haiyan in the Philippines. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3771 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Philippines Charitable 

3 Giving Assistance Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR 

5 CHARITABLE CASH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RE6 LIEF OF VICTIMS OF TYPHOON HAIYAN IN 

7 THE PHILIPPINES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 170 of the 

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any 

10 contribution described in subsection (b) made after the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act, and before April 15, 

12 2014, as if such contribution was made on December 31, 

13 2013, and not in 2014. 

14 (b) CONTRIBUTION DESCRIBED.—A contribution is 

15 described in this subsection if such contribution is a cash 

16 contribution made for the relief of victims in areas af17 fected by Typhoon Haiyan, for which a charitable con18 tribution deduction is allowable under section 170 of the 

19 Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

20 (c) RECORDKEEPING.—In the case of a contribution 

21 described in subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the 

22 name of the donee organization, the date of the contribu23 tion, and the amount of the contribution shall be treated 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3771 RDS

1 as meeting the recordkeeping requirements of section 

2 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs April 29, 2008

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ERICA LYNN WYMA

 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamblen County

Nos. 04CR395 John F. Dugger, Jr., Judge

No. E2007-01999-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 10, 2008

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., concurring.

I concur in the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I question, though,

whether we can firmly say that the victim’s saying, “No, No,” and “Mommy hit me” was sufficiently

relevant and not too prejudicial in the context of the trial.

The evidence primarily indicates that the victim was injured by the defendant’s shaking her.

Such was the main thrust of the expert testimony. The statements were shown to be excited

utterances, but the difficulty is relating the statements to the trauma proven in the trial. There was

no independent proof that the defendant hit the victim, as opposed to shaking her, and thereby caused

the victim’s injuries. The potential existed that the victim’s statements referred to another incident

not on trial. If such were the case, the defendant would have reason to complain.

The record, though, is insufficient for us regarding prejudice. Although the state’s expert

witnesses focused on the injuries being consistent with the defendant’s shaking the victim, they also

indicated that the trauma could occur by other violent means. The record does not include the jury

selection or the closing arguments. We have no way of knowing whether the state focused only on

shaking as the cause of the victim’s injuries. If the case was presented in more general terms, I

believe the trial court properly allowed the statements into evidence. Under the circumstances, I

concur in affirming the defendant’s conviction.

____________________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, PRESIDING JUDGE
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, David C. Mahoney, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable.]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.                                           /s/ David C. Mahoney  Date: May 15, 2006 David C. Mahoney   President and Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00623

- CR

Matt hew SERNA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 05

- 0186

- CRA

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Leticia Escamilla ’ s notification of later record is hereby GRANTED. The reporter ’ s record is due no later than January 2, 2019. No Further Extensions.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court