alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATE
        OF AMENDMENT TO**
 **CERTIFICATE
        OF INCORPORATION**
  The
        corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
        Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:
 
 **FIRST** :  That
        a
        meeting of the Board of Directors of Summus, Inc.(the “Corporation”) resolutions
        were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of
        Incorporation of the Corporation , declaring said amendment to be advisable
        and
        calling a meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation for consideration
        thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
        follows:
 
 **RESOLVED** ,
        that
        the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended by replacing
        the
        Article First in its entirety, so that, as amended, said Article shall
        be
        and read as follows:
 
 “FIRST:
        The name of the corporation is Oasys Mobile, Inc”
  **SECOND** :
        That
        thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, a special meeting
        of the stockholders of the Corporation was duly called and convened in
        accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
        Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute
        were voted in favor of such amendment.
 
 **THIRD** :
        That
        said amendment was duly approved in accordance with the provisions of Section
        242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
 
  IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment
        to be
        executed in its name and on its behalf by its Chief Executive Officer and
        attested by its Corporate Secretary on this 30th day of January, 2006.
  SUMMUS,
        INC.
  By: 
        /s/ Gary E.
        Ban
 Name:
        Gary E. Ban
 Title:
        Chief Executive Officer
 
  ATTEST:
  By: 
        /s/ Donald T.
        Locke
 Donald
        T.
        Locke
 Corporate
        Secretary
EX-10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTES



THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTES (this “Amendment”) is made and
entered into as of August 8, 2006 by and between Orion HealthCorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), and Brantley Partners IV, L.P. (“Payee”).



WHEREAS, on June 1, 2005 the Company issued to Payee that certain Convertible Subordinated
Promissory Note in the original principal amount of $1,025,000 due April 19, 2006 (the “First
Note”);



WHEREAS, on June 1, 2005 the Company issued to Payee that certain Convertible Subordinated
Promissory Note in the original principal amount of $225,000 due April 19, 2006 (the “Second Note”
and collectively with the First Note, the “Notes”);



WHEREAS, on May 9, 2006, the Company and Payee entered into that certain First Amendment to
Convertible Subordinated Promissory Notes, which extended the maturity date for the Notes to August
15, 2006; and



WHEREAS, the Company and Payee desire to further amend the Notes on the terms and conditions set
forth herein.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and promises contained herein, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:



1. Amended Terms. The maturity date set forth in the preamble of each Note shall be extended until
October 15, 2006.



2. Remainder of Agreement. All other terms and provisions of the Notes shall remain unchanged and
in full force and effect.



3. Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall constitute one in the same instrument,
and facsimile transmissions of the signature provided for below may be relied upon, and shall have
the same force and effect, as the originals of such signatures. The terms and conditions hereof,
along with the Notes, constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to
the subject matter of this Amendment and supersede all previous communications, either oral or
written, representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever, except as expressly set forth
herein. All issues concerning this Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Georgia, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law
provision or rule (whether of the State of Georgia or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the
application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of Georgia.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ORION HEALTHCORP, INC.
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Terrence L. Bauer
 

Terrence L. Bauer
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer and President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BRANTLEY PARTNERS IV, L.P.
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: Brantley Venture Management IV, L.P., its

general partner
	 	 
	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Paul H. Cascio
 

Paul H. Cascio
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	General Partner
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

I-many, Inc. 

Edison, New Jersey 

 

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-68924, 333-76716, 333-85044, 333-88714 and 333-105088) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-41362, 333-60162, 333-64974, 333-86958 and 333-11651) of I-many, Inc. andsubsidiaries of our reports dated March 15, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of I-many, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

Woodbridge, New Jersey

 

March 15, 2006
#### B.H. JONES, Relator, v. The Honorable Gus J. STRAUSS, the Honorable B.B. Schraub, Judges, Respondents.

No. C-9877.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1992.

ORDER

The supplemental transcript submitted by the Honorable Oliver S. Kitzman is accepted as filed to demonstrate the trial court’s compliance with this court’s prior orders limiting the scope of the accounting proceeding. The trial court shall resolve any questions of fact and law and render a final judgment in the accounting proceeding, so that the parties may have the opportunity to appeal that separate judgment. *Jones v. Strauss,*800 S.W.2d 842, 845 n. 1 (Tex.1990).
1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leslie Merritt, Jr., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, et al. 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NO. CV17-04540-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

This Court has considered Plaintiff Leslie Merritt, Jr. and Defendants Maricopa County 

and William Montgomery’s Stipulation for Dismissal of Defendants Maricopa County and 

William Montgomery only. Doc. 223. 

IT IS ORDERED the stipulation for dismissal of Defendants Maricopa County and 

William Montgomery only with prejudice (Doc. 223) is granted. Each side shall bear its own 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Dated this 21st day of December, 2018.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 538 

Supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2009, and encouraging the International 

Olympic Committee to select Chicago, Illinois, as the host city for the 

2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2009 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. QUIGLEY, 

Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. BEAN, Mr. FOSTER, Mrs. HALVORSON, Mr. HARE, 

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. KIRK, 

Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. MANZULLO, and Mr. RUSH) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2009, and encouraging 

the International Olympic Committee to select Chicago, 

Illinois, as the host city for the 2016 Olympic and 

Paralympic Games. 

Whereas Olympic Day, June 23, 2009, celebrates the Olympic ideal of developing peace through sport; 

Whereas June 23 marks the anniversary of the founding of 

the modern Olympic movement, the date on which the 

Congress of Paris approved the proposal of Pierre de 

Coubertin to found the modern Olympics; 

Whereas for more than 100 years, the Olympic movement has 

built a more peaceful and better world by educating 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 538 IH 

young people through amateur athletics, by bringing together athletes from many countries in friendly competition, and by forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity, and fair play; 

Whereas the United States and Chicago, Illinois, advocate the 

ideals of the Olympic movement; 

Whereas hundreds of local governments from across the 

United States are joining together to show their support 

for bringing the Olympic Games to Chicago, Illinois, in 

2016; 

Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the development of 

Olympic and Paralympic Sport in the United States; 

Whereas Olympic Day encourages the participation of youth 

of the United States in Olympic and Paralympic sport; 

Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the teaching of Olympic 

history, health, arts, and culture among the youth of the 

United States; 

Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the youth of the United 

States to support the Olympic movement and the selection of Chicago, Illinois, as the host city for the 2016 

Olympic and Paralympic Games; and 

Whereas enthusiasm for Olympic and Paralympic sport is at 

an all-time high: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports Olympic Day and the goals that 

3 Olympic Day pursues; and 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 538 IH 

1 (2) encourages the International Olympic Com2 mittee to select Chicago, Illinois, as the host city for 

3 the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(File No. 333-112853 and File No. 333-116418) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No.333-114967 and File No. 333-114281) of DDi Corp. of our reportsdated March 11, 2005 relating tothe consolidated financial statements (Predecessor Company and Successor Company), financialstatement schedule (Predecessor Company and Successor Company) and management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting (Successor Company), which appear inthis Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1.
/S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
August 16, 2005
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00882

- CR

Darius DUKES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR

- 12

- 040

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED October 21, 2015.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Anthony Jefferson,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-17-04197-PHX-JJT (ESW)

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) (“R&R”) submitted by 

United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett in this matter recommending that the 

Court deny and dismiss with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner has filed timely Objections to the R&R (Doc. 24), as 

well as an Application for Certificate of Appealability from the District Court (Doc. 25). 

Upon consideration of all of the above, the Court will overrule the Objections, adopt the 

R&R and dismiss the Petition. 

 Judge Willett’s R&R thoroughly and exhaustively analyzed each of the five bases 

on which Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of his former counsel in the underlying 

matter, and correctly concluded that none of those five claims met the standard for 

ineffective assistance set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). For the 

reasons set forth in abundant detail in the R&R, Judge Willett correctly concludes that in 

none of the five instances argued does Petitioner satisfy either prong of Strickland: there is 

no showing of either objectively deficient performance by counsel or prejudice. Indeed in 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Grounds Four and Five, Petitioner’s proffered courses of action all would have been 

outright futile. To wit: the fruits of a search that Petitioner had to consent to as a condition 

of probation (Ground Four) cannot as a matter of law be suppressed as unconstitutionally 

obtained. Similarly, it is hornbook law that jail calls (Ground Five) are not testimonial in 

nature and therefore their introduction into evidence at trial does not violate the 

confrontation clause. Moreover, Judge Willett correctly concluded that the state court’s 

own application of the Strickland standard was not unreasonable. 

Petitioner’s Objections merely re-argue precisely what he stated in his Petition. 

They raise nothing that calls into question Judge Willett’s reasoning. And they similarly 

ignore the law set forth in the R&R. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objections (Doc. 24) and adopting in whole the 

R&R (Doc. 22). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court shall 

enter judgment accordingly and close this matter. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of 

Appealability (Doc. 25) and leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Petitioner 

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his claims for 

relief. 

 Dated this 8th day of March, 2019. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1301]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Agency Forms Under Review

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Correction; delay of reporting date.
SUMMARY: In notice document 95-31456 beginning on page 67357 in the 
issue of Friday, December 29, 1995, correct the following statement 
regarding proposed revisions to the Reports of Condition for Foreign 
Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations and Financial Information 
for Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations (FR 2314a, b and 
c):
    On page 67358 in the second column, the statement that proposed 
revisions would be effective as of the December 31, 1995, reporting 
date should be corrected to read ``The proposed revisions to the 
reporting form and instructions would be effective as of the March 31, 
1996, reporting date. Respondents should use the current form and 
instructions for the December 31, 1995, reporting date.''
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 22, 
1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-1301 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45AM]
Billing Code 6210-01-F
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James McGee,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Zurich American Insurance Company,

Defendant.

No. CV-17-4024-PHX-DGC

COURT’S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Dated this 5th day of January, 2022.

Case 2:17-cv-04024-DGC Document 138 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James McGee,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Zurich American Insurance Company,

Defendant.

No. CV-17-04024-PHX-DGC

VERDICT

We the jury, upon our oaths, unanimously find as follows:

1. Did Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company breach its insurance 

contract when it denied coverage for the claims asserted by Plaintiff James McGee?

Yes _______ No _______

2. Did Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company breach the duty of good 

faith and fairly dealing implied in its insurance contract?

Yes _______ No _______

Dated: __________________ Jury Foreperson Number: _____ 

Case 2:17-cv-04024-DGC Document 138 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 372 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 372

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 29, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1913) to provide Federal assistance to 
States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed 
in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour and 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who may 
yield control of blocks of that time; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350,

As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005 of ASG Consolidated LLC (the
Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    BRAD BODENMANName:

Brad BodenmanTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

May 16, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ASG Consolidated LLC and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 26, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 26, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0678. RABEN THORNTON v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 CIVIL MINUTES – SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Phoenix Division 

CIV 17-4540-PHX-DGC DATE: 2/08/2018 

Year Case No Initials 

Title: Leslie A Merritt Jr., vs. State of Arizona,et.al., 

 Plaintiff Defendants 

======================================================================= 

HON: DAVID G. CAMPBELL 

 Traci C. Abraham Jennifer Pancratz 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter 

APPEARANCES 

 David Don and Jason Lamm 

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s) 

Edward Novak, Jonathan Brinson, Melissa Ho for State of Arizona Defendants 

 Attorney(s) for Defendant(s) 

======================================================================= 

PROCEEDINGS: X Open Court Chambers Other

Other Appearances: Daniel Struck for defendants Edward Leiter and Vanessa 

Losicco; Michele Iafrate for defendants William Montgomery and Maricopa 

County 

Scheduling conference held. Deadlines discussed. Court will enter a case 

management order. 

Notice of Party Dismissal of Defendants Edward Leiter and Vanessa Losicco 

(doc. 41) discussed. Claims against Defendants Edward Leiter and Vanessa 

Losicco are dismissed with prejudice. Their motion to dismiss (doc.35) and 

motion to stay discovery (37) are denied as moot. 

Parties to resubmit a proposed protective order that complies with LR 5.6. 

Remaining defendants’ request to file an early motion for summary judgment 

is granted and shall be filed within 30-45 days. Motion and statement of 

facts limited to 15 pages each, response and statement of facts limited to 

15 pages each, and reply limited to 10 pages. 

A telephonic discovery call is set for 2/28/2018 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall 

confer and narrow issues in advance of the call. The parties should call 

the Court on one conference line. 

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 42 Filed 02/08/18 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 Annual Report of DDi
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mikel H. Williams, President and 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/ MIKEL H. WILLIAMSMikel H. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
February 22, 2011