alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.6

                           CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
                                     TO THE
                     RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                      FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.

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

                   PURSUANT TO SECTION 103(F) OF THE GENERAL
                    CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

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

    FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter
called the "Corporation"), does hereby certify as follows:

    FIRST: The Corporation filed a Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the
"Restated Certificate") with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on
December 17, 1991.

    SECOND: Article FIFTH, paragraph (b) of the Restated Certificate, as filed,
was incorrect in the following respects: (1) it erroneously included a sentence
it should not have included and (2) it erroneously included in two places the
word "herein" instead of the words indicated in quotes in Article FOURTH of this
Certificate of Correction.

    THIRD: Article FIFTH, paragraph (b) of the Restated Certificate is hereby
corrected by deleting the first sentence thereof.

    FOURTH: Article FIFTH, paragraph (b) of the Restated Certificate is hereby
further corrected by replacing the word "herein" contained in the second line of
each of clauses (i) and (ii) of such paragraph with the following words:

    "in this Certificate of Incorporation, including in a resolution of the
Board of Directors, adopted pursuant to the provisions of this Certificate of
Incorporation, establishing any series or class of Common Stock or Preferred
Stock".

    FIFTH: The foregoing is duly made in accordance with Section 103(f) of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC. has caused this
Certificate to be duly executed in its corporate name this 27th day of March,
2001.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                    <C>  <C>
                                                       FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.

                                                       By:  /s/ TODD DUCHENE
                                                            -----------------------------------------
                                                            Name: Todd DuChene
                                                            Title: Vice President, Secretary and
                                                                  General Counsel
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.3




                            Allegiance Telecom, Inc.
                    Computation of per Share Earnings (Loss)
                      Nine Months Ended September 30, 1998


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Number of Shares         Percent Outstanding       Equivalent Shares
                                                          ----------------         -------------------       -----------------
<S>                                                       <C>                      <C>                       <C>
Prior to Initial Public Offering
      1997 Common Stock Offering                                       426               66.67%                            284

After Initial Public Offering
      1997 Common Stock Offering                                       426               33.33%                            142
      1998 Common Stock Offering                                10,000,000               33.33%                      3,333,333
      Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                 40,341,128               33.33%                     13,447,043
                                                                                                                 ------------- 
                                                                                                                    16,780,802


WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                                 16,780,802

NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK                                                                              $(218,442,275)

NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED                                                                            $      (13.02)
                                                                                                                 ============= 
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection with the report on Form 10-Q of New South Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, William T. Ratliff, III, 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 condensed consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

  

|                                                                                                   |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /S/ WILLIAM T. RATLIFF, III                                                                            |   |   |        |
|                                                                                                        |   |   |   |
| **William T. Ratliff, III****Chief Executive Officer****New South Bancshares, Inc.****August 13,2003** |   |   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to New South Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by New South Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2989]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION


Notice of Commission Visit

February 2, 1995.
    Notice is hereby given that on February 7 and 8, 1995, members of 
the Commission and certain advisory staff personnel will visit the mail 
processing facilities of the U.S. Postal Service in Tampa, Tarpon 
Springs, and Clearwater, Florida. Visits will also take place at Val-
Pak Direct Marketing in Largo, Florida, and Time-Warner in Tampa, 
Florida. In addition, members of the Commission and certain advisory 
staff personnel will meet with representatives of Response Media in St. 
Petersburg, Florida.
    A report of the visits will be on file in the Commission's Docket 
Room. For further information contact Margaret P. Crenshaw, Secretary 
of the Commission, at 202-789-6840.
Margaret P. Crenshaw,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-2989 Filed 2-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41433 

Conference Calendar

 

IN RE: JAMES LEONARD McCURRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-00-CV-699

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Leonard McCurry, Texas prisoner #735421, seeks leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following

certification that his appeal was taken in bad faith, pursuant to

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997). McCurry argues

that the sanctions order on which the district court relied to

deny him leave to file a lawsuit in another judicial district did

not require him to pay the monetary sanction before filing future

lawsuits but rather allowed him to obtain permission without

regard to the monetary sanction; that any requirement that he pay

the sanction before filing future suits deprives him of access to
No. 00-41433

-2-

the courts; and that the district court violated the Due Process

Clause and FED. R. CIV. P. 11 when imposing the sanction.

McCurry took no appeal from the order imposing sanctions on

him; any appeal now would be untimely. See FED. R. APP. P.

4(a)(1). We will not consider a direct attack on the sanctions

order.

McCurry’s argument that enforcement of the sanction order

deprives him of access to the courts is unavailing –- a

litigant’s inability to pay a monetary sanction does not excuse

the litigant from the effect of the sanction. Gelabert v.

Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 1990). Contrary to

McCurry’s assertion, the order does not provide that he either

pay the sanction or obtain permission to file. McCurry’s factual

argument regarding the sanctions order is without merit. 

McCurry’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,563,957
<SECURITIES>                                13,001,472
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,652,945
<PP&E>                                       3,764,896
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,479,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,315,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,864,953
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,589
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,285,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,315,635
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,046,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,083,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             134,608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,037,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,037,108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,037,108)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.82)
        

</TABLE>
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Cost-of-Living Adjustment

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						A9: For single/head-of-household/married-filing-separate taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) below $108,700 and for joint filers with MAGI below $217,400 for December 2025 ($85,000 and $170,000 multiplied by estimated CPI-U for 2018-2025), use the chain-weighted version of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) to calculate the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), beginning with the December 2025 COLA. For those beneficiaries whose MAGI is above these thresholds, provide no COLA. Use prior tax year income data for this determination. Use the chain-weighted CPI for the COLA for years prior to benefit receipt. Index the eligibility income threshold amounts to the CPI-U after December 2025.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
Order entered August 14 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01430
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01603
- CR
NAKIA LASHUAN FRANKL IN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 81048
- 20 08 , 416
- 81072
- 2012



### O RDER On July 5, 2013, this Court struck the Anders brief filed by counsel. We further ordered court reporter Susan Maienschein, as official court reporter of the 416th Judicial Distric t Court, to file, within thirty days, either: the reporter’s record o f the June 19, 2008 guilty plea hearing and any hearings on the modifications of appellant’s community supervision; or (2) written verification that the June 19, 2008 hearing and /or any modification hearings were not recorded. To date, Ms. Maienschein has filed neither the reporter’s record nor written verification that the hearings were not recorded. The appeals cannot proceed until the issue of the reporter’s record is
resolved.
Accor dingly, we ORDER the trial court to make findings regarding the following: Whether the June 19, 2008 hearing and any modification hearings were recorded. If the

hearings were not recorded, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the heari ngs were recorded, the name and contact information of the court reporter(s) who recorded the hearings.

 Whether the notes of the hearings are available and can be transcribed and, if so, the date by which the record will be filed.

 If the notes are not av ailable or cannot be transcribed, whether appellant is at fault for the loss or destruction of the notes and whether the parties can agree on a substituted record.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of
this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Chris Oldner, Presiding Judge, 416th Judicial District Court , and to counsel for all parties.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          81,912                  76,963
<SECURITIES>                                   107,245                  91,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,534                  41,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,500                   1,088
<INVENTORY>                                     26,931                  17,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,502                 254,043
<PP&E>                                         129,506                  97,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,783                  39,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 522,893                 381,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,480                  29,018
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       381,596                 316,911
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,092                  34,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   522,893                 381,008
<SALES>                                        281,534                 176,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,534                 176,885
<CGS>                                          104,156                  70,041
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,392                 126,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,890                  59,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,010                   9,079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             69,880                  50,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,880                  50,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.46                    0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42                    0.31


</TABLE>
#### L. A. JAMES and WALTER JAMES v. WESTERN CAROLINA POWER COMPANY.

(Filed 11 December, 1929.)

Appeal by defendant from *Lyon, Emergency Judge,*at July Special Term, 1929, of Bubke. No error.

*Avery & Patton for plaintiffs.*

*W. 8. O’B. Robinson, John M. Mull, 8. J. Ervin a,nd 8. J. Ervin, Jr., for defendant.*

Per Cubiam.

In tbeir complaint, tbe plaintiffs allege tbat they are the owners of a tract of land in Burke County containing 60% acres, more or less, and that a small stream or natural water course flows through several acres of the lowlands and runs into Upper Creek, and that Upper Creek empties into Catawba Eiver. They allege that the defendant in 1925 constructed a dam across Catawba Eiver and has since operated a hydro-electric plant for the purpose of manufacturing and selling electricity; that in consequence of the construction of the dam the water has been ponded upon the land of the plaintiffs, which has thereby been permanently injured. They demand judgment against the defendant for actual and permanent damages done to their premises and for such other relief as they may be entitled to. The defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and alleged that it is authorized by its charter to construct and maintain a dam or dams upon Catawba Eiver. It pleaded the right of eminent domain under the laws of the State, requested that plaintiff’s damages, if any, be permanently assessed, and demanded that upon payment of such damages it be given the right, privilege and easement to continue the maintenance and operation of its plant as it is now located and constructed.

The court submitted the following issue: “What permanent damages, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to recover .of the defendant for and on account of the construction, maintenance and operation of the dam of the defendant at Ehodhiss?” The issue was answered in favor of the plaintiffs and their damages were assessed. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict for the amount of their recovery and it was adjudged ■that satisfaction of the judgment should transfer, convey to, and vest in the defendant, its successors and assigns, the right, privilege, and easement to continue the maintenance and operation of its dam and plant at or near Ehodhiss as now located and constructed. To the judgment awarded the defendant excepted and appealed therefrom to the Supreme Court.

*813We have considered tbe exceptions argued orally and in tbe appellant’s brief and bave concluded tbat tbey do not present any sufficient ground for granting a new trial. Several of tbe exceptions were abandoned on tbe argument and we are of opinion tbat those wbicb were relied upon do not, in view of tbe defendant’s answer, tbe charge to tbe jury, tbe verdict, and tbe judgment, entitle tbe defendant to another bearing. We find

No error.
#### In the Matter of the ESTATE OF R. H. WRIGHT, Deceased, and R. H. WRIGHT, Jr., and T. D. WRIGHT, Executors of the Last Will and Testament oF R. H. WRIGHT, Deceased, v. M. W. BALL, Administrator C. T. A., and Others, Devisees and Legatees of R. H. WRIGHT, Deceased.

(Filed 5 April, 1933.)

Appeal and Error J l>—

An order denying a petition to require tlie receiver of an estate being administered under order of the court “to take such steps as may be necessary to complete the administration” of the estate is entered in the sound discretion of the trial court which is not subject to review in the absence of abuse.

Appeal by petitioner, Lucy B. Spencer, from *Small,*Jat March Term, 1933, of Durham.

Dismissed.

•The above entitled causes were heard on the petition of Lucy B. Spencer, one of the devisees and legatees of R. H. Wright, deceased, for an order requiring the receiver of the estate of R. H. Wright, deceased, “to take such steps as may be proper and necessary under the law to complete the administration of the estate of R. H. Wright, deceased, in order that the personal and real property belonging to said estate may be properly divided among those entitled to it.”

The estate of R. II. Wright is now being administered by a- receiver appointed by the judge presiding in the Superior Court of Durham County, under the orders of said court. See *In re Estate of Wright and Wright v. Ball,*200 N. C., 620, 158 S. E., 192.

From an order denying her petition, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Robert Moseley for petitioner.*

Per Curiam.

The order in this cause, made by the judge presiding in the Superior Court of Durham County, is not reviewable by this Court. The petition was addressed to and the order was made by the judge, in his discretion. No matter of law or legal inference is involved in the petition or in the order. On the facts found by the judge, from the record and from affidavits filed by the petitioner and by the receiver, there was no abuse by the judge of his discretion. It is not so contended by the petitioner on her appeal to this Court. The appeal mus be

Dismissed.