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

 
Exhibit 4.4
 
CIMAREX ENERGY CO.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
TO
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS
OF
8 1∕8% SERIES A CUMULATIVE PERPETUAL CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
 
Cimarex Energy Co. (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), hereby certifies that:
 
FIRST: The Corporation’s Certificate of Designations of 8 1∕8% Series A Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Certificate of Designations”) was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on February 28, 2019, and amended and restated on May 12, 2021.
 
SECOND: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance with the provisions of Sections 141(f) of the DGCL and Article III, Section 9 of the Corporation’s bylaws, as currently in effect, adopted resolutions to, among other things, amend Article 6 of the Certificate of Designations by adding the following as Section (i) thereof (the “Amendment”):
 
(i) So long as any shares of Series A Preferred Stock remain outstanding, the Holders shall vote together with the Common Stock as a single class on all matters on which the holders of Common Stock are entitled to vote, with the Holders being entitled to cast thirty (30) votes for each share of Series A Preferred Stock standing in the Holder’s name on the books of the Corporation.
 
THIRD: The Amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 242 of the DGCL.
 
FOURTH: This Certificate of Amendment shall become effective immediately upon filing.
 
EXCEPT AS AMENDED ABOVE, the Certificate of Designations shall remain in full force and effect.
 
[Signature page follows]
 
 
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has executed this Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Designations of 8 1∕8% Series A Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock on this 30th day of September, 2021.
 
CIMAREX ENERGY CO.
 
						
	/s/ Thomas E. Jorden	 


Thomas E. Jorden
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1898

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DURHAM CO. DETENTION FACILITY; CAPTAIN BARNES; MAJOR 

BAZMORE; CHIEF PRIGNOVO; CAPTAIN RUSSELL; MAJOR CORNIGEE; 

OFC. WHITTFIELD; OFC. MCMILLIAN; STAFF SGT. COLEMAN; OFC. 

GIBSON; CORRECT CARE SOLUTION(S); NURSE JOHNSON; SLADE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01080-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen 

v. Durham Co. Det. Facility, No. 1:20-cv-01080-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2021). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# L_2008069EN.01003701.xml

| 13.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 69/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 69/37

---

Corrigendum to the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 225 of 29 August 2007
  )

On page 18, in Article 97(1):

for:

‘Before giving its decision on an application for legal aid, the Tribunal shall invite the other party to submit its written observations unless it is already apparent from the information produced that the conditions laid down in Article 95(2) have not been satisfied or that those laid down in Article 94(3) have been satisfied.’,

read:

‘Before giving its decision on an application for legal aid, the Tribunal shall invite the other party to submit its written observations unless it is already apparent from the information produced that the conditions laid down in Article 95(2) have not been satisfied or that those laid down in Article 95(3) have been satisfied.’

---
#### SUMMA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, THE HONORABLE JOHN F. MENDOZA, Judge; MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, a New York Corporation; and FIRST WESTERN SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, a Nevada Corporation, Respondents.

No. 12175

July 28, 1980

614 P.2d 4

*601*Lionel Sawyer & Collins,*of Las Vegas, for Petitioner.

*Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon*and *Christopher L. Kaempfer,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Petitioner, Summa Corporation, is a defendant in a declaratory judgment action commenced by First Western Savings Association against Summa and Mobil Oil Co. In that action, First Western sought a judicial determination that its lease with Mobil Oil was terminated and that Summa’s option to purchase the land covered by Mobil’s lease was unenforceable.

Summa moved for partial summary judgment against First Western and Mobil. This motion was granted and Summa was awarded damages, costs and attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined at trial. Mobil petitioned for a rehearing, which was granted. At a rehearing on the motion, the district court ruled that material issues of fact remained and denied Summa’s motion. Summa, through this proceeding in mandamus, seeks to compel the entry of partial summary judgment.

A writ of mandamus will issue to compel entry of a summary *602judgment when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hoffman v. District Court, 90 Nev. 267, 523 P.2d 848 (1974); Holloway v. Barrett, 87 Nev. 385, 487 P.2d 501 (1971); Dzack v. Marshall, 80 Nev. 345, 393 P.2d 610 (1964); see NRCP 56(c); NRAP 3A(b)(5).

In this case, Mobil’s lease was properly terminated only if Mobil had or should have had notice of its new lessor, First Western. First Western, as the transferee of a lessor, had an affirmative duty to bring home to Mobil notice of the transfer of the lease. Snortland v. Olsonawski, 238 N.W.2d 215 (Minn. 1976); Pillsbury Inv. Co. v. Otto, 65 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1954). Summa asserts that such notice can be inferred from a series of exchanges between First Western and Mobil. As Mobil sent its renewal notice to its prior lessor, however, it can be inferred that Mobil had no notice of a change in its lessor. Indulging, as we must, in all reasonable inferences favorable to Mobil, Round Hill Gen. Improvement v. B-Neva, 96 Nev. 181, 606 P.2d 176 (1980), we cannot say that Mobil had such notice as a matter of law.1

Writ denied.

1

This case was consolidated with Mobil Oil Corporation v. First Western Savings Association, Docket No. 11244, for the purpose of oral argument.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-76399) pertaining to: the Accredo Health, Inc. and its Subsidiaries
Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated; the
Accredo Health, Incorporated 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; the Accredo
Health, Incorporated 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Accredo Health,
Incorporated 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, of our report dated August 16, 2002,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Accredo Health, Incorporated.

                                                /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
September 27, 2002
Furniture Brands International, Inc.



                         Description of Employment Agreement
                                     between
                         Furniture Brands International, Inc.
                                       and
                             Wilbert G. Holliman, Jr.

          Mr. Holliman has agreed to serve as President and Chief Executive
     Officer of Furniture Brands International, Inc. for not less than
     three years from January 1, 1997 at an initial salary of $750,000 per
     year, with an initial target incentive bonus of 50% of base salary
     under the Furniture Brands Executive Incentive Plan.  Also, as of
     January 1, 1997 he will become a participant in the Furniture Brands
     pension and welfare benefit plans.  Should he serve three years, then,
     beginning at age 65 (which is September 2002), he will be entitled to
     a bonus payment of $1 million per year for three years.  This payment
     will be made to his beneficiaries or to his estate should he die after
     January 1, 2000 but before reaching age 68.  As of January 1, 1997,
     this agreement will supercede his current employment agreement with
     Action Industries, Inc.<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.4





CERTIFICATION





I, Joseph Talamo, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc.; and





2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: April 29, 2016








/s/ Joseph Talamo


Name: Joseph Talamo


Title: Chief Financial Officer of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. and will be retained by Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5404 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5404

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize space-available 
travel on military aircraft for a member or former member of a reserve 
     component who is eligible for retired pay but for age and for 
          dependents of the member who accompany the retiree.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2010

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize space-available 
travel on military aircraft for a member or former member of a reserve 
     component who is eligible for retired pay but for age and for 
          dependents of the member who accompany the retiree.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF GRAY AREA RETIREES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS FOR 
              SPACE-AVAILABLE TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Eligibility.--Chapter 157 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 2641b the following new section:
``Sec. 2641c. Space-available travel on Department of Defense aircraft: 
              Reserve members eligible for retired pay but for age; 
              dependents
    ``(a) Reserve Retirees Under Applicable Eligibility Age.--A member 
or former member of a reserve component who, but for being under the 
eligibility age applicable to the member under section 12731 of this 
title, otherwise would be eligible for retired pay under chapter 1223 
of this title shall be provided transportation on Department of Defense 
aircraft, on a space-available basis, on the same basis as members of 
the armed forces entitled to retired pay under any other provision of 
law.
    ``(b) Dependents.--The dependent of a member or former member 
described in subsection (a) shall be provided transportation on 
Department of Defense aircraft, on a space-available basis, if the 
dependent is accompanying the member.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
2641b the following new item:

``2641c. Space-available travel on Department of Defense aircraft: 
                            Reserve members eligible for retired pay 
                            but for age; dependents.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, John Swallow, CEO, Principal Financial Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on 10QSB of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2007,  as filed with the 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; 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: August 20, 2007.  /s/ John Swallow  _______________________ John Swallow (CEO, Principal Financial Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
August 29, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RICHARD C. FORD, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00610-CV V.

PREMIER INSTALLATION & DESIGN GROUP, INC. AND MORRIS E. 

SANFORD, III, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Premier 

Installation & Design Group, Inc. and Morris E. Sanford, III, signed, April 2, 2012, 

was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no 

error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED. We 

order appellant, Richard C. Ford, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We 

further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2007138EN.01000101.xml

| 22.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

COMMISSION OPINION

of 21 June 2007

concerning the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the SOCATRI decontamination and uranium recovery plant at the Tricastin site in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(only the French text is authentic)

(2007/C 138/01)

On 25 October 2006, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the SOCATRI decontamination and uranium recovery plant.

On the basis of the General Data, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Italy, is approximately 170 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Italy, is approximately 170 km.

| 2. | The overall result of the planned modification will be to increase the discharge authorisation of airborne radioactive effluents in respect of tritium, carbon-14 and radionuclides produced during the treatment of effluents presenting a uranium reprocessing spectrum. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The overall result of the planned modification will be to increase the discharge authorisation of airborne radioactive effluents in respect of tritium, carbon-14 and radionuclides produced during the treatment of effluents presenting a uranium reprocessing spectrum.

| 3. | During normal operation, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

During normal operation, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in other Member States.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the initial General Data, the planned modification will not give rise to doses in other Member States liable to affect the health of the population. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the initial General Data, the planned modification will not give rise to doses in other Member States liable to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form from the SOCATRI decontamination and uranium recovery plant at the Tricastin site in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SCOTTIE BALLARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-229; CA-02-2105-3) Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scottie Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Scottie Ballard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ballard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Ballard’s motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66483-66484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review, Request 
for Comments; Renewal of an Approved Information Collection Activity, 
Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators--FAR Part 63

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: 49 U.S.C., 44902(a), 44702(a)(2), and 44707(1) authorize 
issuance of airman certificates and provide for examination and rating 
of flying schools. FAR 63 prescribes requirements for flight navigator 
certification and training course requirements for these airmen.

[[Page 66484]]

Information collected is used to determine certification eligibility.

DATES: Please submit comments by December 2, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Street on (202) 267-9895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators--FAR Part 63.
    Type of Request: Renewal of an approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0007.
    Form(s): FAA Form 8300-3.
    Affected Public: A total of 632 airmen.
    Frequency: The information is collected on an as-needed basis.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: 20 minutes.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 505 hours annually.
    Abstract: 49 USC, 44902(a), 44702(a)(2), and 44707(1) authorize 
issuance of airman certificates and provide for examination and rating 
of flying schools. FAR 63 prescribes requirements for flight navigator 
certification and training course requirements for these airmen. 
Information collected is used to determine certification eligibility.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FAA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of 
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 26, 2005.
Judith D. Street,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Information Systems and 
Technology Services Staff, ABA-20.
[FR Doc. 05-21877 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M