alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv4wxeyx8y






Exhibit 4(e)(8)




SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE




TO INDENTURE DATED DECEMBER 23, 2002




     THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE dated as of February 21, 2008, is delivered pursuant to Section
4.18 of the Indenture dated as of December 23, 2002 (as heretofore or hereafter modified and
supplemented and in effect from time to time, the “2002 Indenture”) among LAMAR MEDIA
CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee (the “Trustee”). All terms used herein without definition
having the meanings ascribed to them in the 2002 Indenture.



     The undersigned hereby agrees that:



     1. The undersigned is a Guarantor under the 2002 Indenture with all of the rights and
obligations of the Guarantors thereunder.



     2. The undersigned has granted, ratified and confirmed, in the form and substance of Exhibit B
to the 2002 Indenture, the Guarantee provided for by Article 10 of the 2002 Indenture.



     3. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the representations and warranties set
forth in the 2002 Indenture, to the extent relating to the undersigned as Guarantor, are correct on
and as of the date hereof.



     4. All notices, requests and other communications provided for in the 2002 Indenture should be
delivered to the undersigned at the following address:


Keith A. Istre

Executive Vice-President and

Chief Financial Officer

Lamar Media Corp. and its Subsidiaries

5551 Corporate Blvd.

Baton Rouge, LA 70808




     5. A counterpart of this Supplemental Indenture may be attached to any counterpart of the 2002
Indenture.



     6. This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
internal laws of the State of New York.



1









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Supplemental Indenture to be duly
executed as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Guarantor:



Hoosier Outdoor Advertising Corporation,

an Indiana corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Sean E. Reilly
 	 
	 	 	Sean E. Reilly, President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ James R. McIlwain
 	 	 
	 	James R. McIlwain, Secretary 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	Accepted:



THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST

COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Christie Leppert
 	 	 
	 	Title:  Assistant Vice President 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




2









 








SCHEDULE OF ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS




	 	 	 
	Guarantor	 	Date of Agreement
	 
	 	 
	Hoosier Outdoor Advertising Corporation

	 	February 21, 2008
	Vista Media Group, Inc.

	 	May 16, 2008
	Seaboard Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc.

	 	May 16, 2008
	Sale Point Posters, Inc.

	 	May 16, 2008
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 9 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 9 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 9 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 9 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 35 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 1 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 2 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 3 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 4 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 5 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 6 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 7 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 8 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 9 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 10 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 11 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 12 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 13 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 14 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 15 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 16 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 17 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 18 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 19 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 20 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 21 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 22 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 23 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 24 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 25 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 26 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 27 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 28 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 29 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 30 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 31 of 32
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 32 of 32
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEI LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting

Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 73093

Agency No. A087

- 957

- 919

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 17, 2021 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ

, BYBEE , and B ADE , Circuit Judges.

Wei Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appea ls’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 73093

§ 1252

. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings

. Garcia

Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency ’s denial of Lin’s CAT claim

because he did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China

. See

Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture

were speculative) ; Go v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (country

reports and credible testimony were insufficient to compel conclusion that

petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured ).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise

denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
Exhibit 12.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Arthur H. del Prado, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ASM International N.V.;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 24, 2005.













|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/    ARTHUR H. DEL
PRADO                 
|Arthur H. del Prado Chief Executive Officer
#### RICHARD M. GARFINKLE, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7612

December 20, 1974

529 P.2d 794

*Stanley H. Brown*and *Harold G. Albright,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert E. Rose,*District Attorney, and *Michael E. Malloy,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this appeal from an order denying a pretrial petition for habeas corpus, we believe evidence presented to the grand jury justified its indictment of appellant. At this juncture we *419need not and do not decide whether such evidence would support a conviction. Cf. McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 512 P.2d 774 (1973); Maskaly v. State, 85 Nev. 111, 450 P.2d 790 (1969).

Other contentions raised by appellant have previously been considered and rejected. See Cairns v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 113, 508 P.2d 1015 (1973); Mears v. State, 83 Nev. 3, 422 P.2d 230 (1967); and, cf. Schmitt v. State, 88 Nev. 320, 497 P.2d 891 (1972).

The order denying habeas relief is affirmed.
#### TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY, MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR, v. MADELINE PLUMSTEAD AND THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE COUNTY OF MORRIS, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May 13, 1932

Decided September 17, 1932.

Before Justices Parker, Campbell and Lloyd.

For the prosecutor, *Charles W. Weelcs.*

For the respondents, *McCarter <& English.*

Per Curiam.

The sole question in this case is whether the Court of Common Pleas has power to award counsel fees to a successful litigant on a writ of *certiorari*to the Supreme Court and thereafter to the Court of Errors and Appeals for professional services rendered on the appeal.

The allowance of counsel fees is a matter of statutory authority and if no such authority existed the court is power*1035less to award them. The only statute relied on by the respondent, section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation act, reads as follows: “The said Court of Common Pleas may, in its discretion, allow a reasonable attorney fee to the party prevailing in the trial of such appeal, which may be taxed in the costs and recovered against the unsuccessful party.”

We find herein no authority for that court to deal with counsel fees incurred on review of proceedings in that tribunal. The appeal referred to in the section unmistakably refers to the appeal then pending in that court. There has been and is no other appeal and the law makes provision for no other. The Court of Common Pleas in reviewing awards of the compensation bureau sits purely as a statutory tribunal and the analogy of proceedings in the Court of Chancery as illustrated in the case of *Sobel*v. *Sobel,*99 *N. J. Eq.*707; 134 *Atl. Rep.*189, bears as we think no analogy. The allowance of counsel fees to the respondent on review by *certiorari*in the Supremo Court and then on appeal to the Court of Errors and Appeals is beyond the power of the Court of Common Pleas, and so much of the judgment as awards the sum of $500 for such services is reversed.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1549 

To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to ensure that employees on leave under the Act maintain health coverage during an employer 

lockout. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2019 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 

ensure that employees on leave under the Act maintain 

health coverage during an employer lockout. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Labor Leave Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MAINTENANCE OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DURING 

6 AN EMPLOYER LOCKOUT. 

7 (a) COVERAGE.—Section 104(c)(1) of the Family and 

8 Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2614(c)(1)) is 

9 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1549 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except’’; 

4 (2) by striking the period and inserting ‘‘and 

5 shall maintain the coverage in a situation in which 

6 the employer engages in a lockout during the leave 

7 period.’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(B) CHANGES IN HEALTH BENEFITS OR

10 PLANS.—Except with respect to a change that 

11 results from a lockout described in subpara12 graph (A)— 

13 ‘‘(i) if an employer provides a new 

14 health plan or benefits or changes a health 

15 plan or benefits while an employee is on 

16 leave under section 102, the employee is 

17 entitled to the new or changed plan or ben18 efits to the same extent as the employee 

19 would be if the employee were not on leave; 

20 and 

21 ‘‘(ii) any change to a health plan, 

22 such as a change in coverage or to a pre23 mium or deductible, that applies to all em24 ployees of the employer’s workforce on that 

25 plan, also applies to an employee enrolled 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1549 IS

1 under the plan and on leave under section 

2 102. 

3 ‘‘(C) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the 

4 term ‘lockout’ means a labor dispute involving 

5 a work stoppage, in which an employer with6 holds work from its employees in order to gain 

7 a concession from the employees.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act, including the amend10 ment made by this Act, takes effect on the date of enact11 ment of this Act. 

12 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 120 days after 

13 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor 

14 shall issue amended regulations under title I of the Family 

15 and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.), 

16 taking into account the amendments made by this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Rodney EMIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jackie CRAWFORD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-15469.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 16, 2005.

Rodney Emil, Ely, NY, pro se.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Nevada state prisoner Rodney Emil appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action against prison employees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Emil’s action because his allegations—that he was charged for prescription drugs, including drugs he did not receive, that he was required to pay for copies in order to file grievances, that defendants did not respond to his grievances to his satisfac*113tion, and that he was denied canteen privileges—do not state a constitutional claim. *See, e.g., Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (due process protection limited to conduct that amounts to an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); *Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs,*766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (charging inmates for medical care does not violate Eighth Amendment); *Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (deprivation of property does not constitute a due process violation when a post-deprivation state remedy is available); Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 73.010; 41.031; 209.243; *Keenan v. Hall,*83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir.1996) (no constitutional right to canteen items).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:06-cv-14964-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Katy Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending July 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David J. Feldman, 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; 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/ David J. Feldman


David J. Feldman


Chief Executive Officer


August 13, 2009











The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided tothe
Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Besix S.A. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912GB-12-C-0001 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59963 

Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq. 

Frankfurt/Main Germany 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Nancy van Noortwijk-Sommer, Esq. 

Brett R. Howard, Esq. 

Jay Aldridge, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Europe 

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE 

Pursuant to the request of the parties in appellant's "STIPULATION OF 

SETTLEMENT," dated 21 September 2016, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

Dated: 22 September 2016 

J. 

~/ REID PROUTY 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59963, Appeal ofBesix S.A., rendered 

in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Case 1:06-cv-14970-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### MUNCHAK CORP v. CALDWELL

No. 265 PC

No. 107 (Fall Term)

Case below: 46 NC App 414

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed for limited purpose 15 August 1980.
#### STATE v. LEWIS

No. 250

Case below: 1 N.C. App. 296.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 23 August 1968. Case set with appeals from the 8th, 24th and 25th Districts.
#### INSURANCE CO. v. DRY CLEANERS

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 444.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 4 December 1973.
exv4w2






EXHIBIT 4.2




CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE, INC.




     Cypress Bioscience, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, hereby certifies that:



     One: The name of this corporation is Cypress Bioscience, Inc. and the date of filing
the original Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware was October 21, 1981 under the name Immune Response Systems, Inc. The
Certificate of Incorporation was subsequently amended and restated on April 18, 1996 under the name
IMRÉ Corporation and was subsequently amended on September 16, 1999, March 9, 2001 and amended and
restated on September 22, 2003 (collectively, the
“Certificate of Incorporation”).



     Two: The Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), acting in accordance with
the provisions of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,
adopted resolutions amending the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation as follows:




Section A of Article IV shall be amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows:




This Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to be
designated, respectively, “Common Stock” and “Preferred Stock.” The
total number of shares which the Corporation is authorized to issue
is 105,000,000 shares. 90,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock,
each having a par value of $.001. 15,000,000 shares shall be
Preferred Stock, each having a par value of $.001.



     Three: Thereafter pursuant to a resolution of the Board, this Certificate of
Amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the Company for their approval, and was duly adopted
in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.



     In Witness Whereof, the Company has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed
by its Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer this 15th day
of June 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Cypress Bioscience, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Sabrina Martucci-Johnson
 	 
	 	 	Sabrina Martucci-Johnson 	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating 
Officer
and Chief Financial Officer