alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3(i)

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO

RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP.

Pursuant
to ORS 60.447, Precision Castparts Corp., an Oregon corporation (the Company), has adopted an Amendment to its Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended (the Articles).



|1. | The name of the Company before the amendment was Precision Castparts Corp.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Section 1 of Article II of the Articles is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The aggregate number of shares that the corporation shall have the authority to issue is four hundred fifty-one million (451,000,000) shares,
divided into four hundred fifty million (450,000,000) shares of Common Stock, without par value, and one million (1,000,000) shares of No Par Serial Preferred Stock, without par value.



|3. | The amendment was adopted on August 16, 2006.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------



|4. | Shareholder action was required to adopt the amendment. The vote was as follows:
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          |  |                             |  |                                    |  |                           |  |                              
|------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Class or series of shares |  | Number of sharesoutstanding |  | Number of votes entitledto be cast |  | Number of votes castfor |  | Number of votes castagainst
|Common Stock              |  | 135,276,274                 |  | 135,276,274                        |  | 123,102,349               |  | 2,641,832                    

DATED: August 17, 2006



PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP.By:

/s/ Roger A. CookeRoger A. CookeVice PresidentRegulatory and Legal Affairs
The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be
exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                                      Third Quarter            First Nine Months
                                                  --------------------       --------------------
                                                    1997         1996          1997         1996
                                                  -------      -------       -------      -------
<S>                                              <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>    
Net Earnings (1)                                  $ 3,503      $ 2,821       $ 8,721      $ 6,987
                                                  ====================       ====================

Weighted average common shares outstanding          7,354        7,352         7,354        7,352

Common equivalent shares from the assumed
   exercise of stock options                            5            3             5            3

Adjusted common and common equivalent             --------------------       --------------------
   shares for computation (2)                       7,359        7,355         7,359        7,355
                                                  ====================       ====================

Net earnings per common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding  (1/2)           $  0.48      $  0.38       $  1.19      $  0.95
                                                  ====================       ====================
</TABLE>
#### Florence DeSiena, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of John DeSiena, Deceased, Respondent, v Maimonides Hospital Center et al., Defendants, and Irving Kroop, Appellant.

In a medical malpractice action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendant Irving Kroop appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated January 27, 1989, which denied his motion to dismiss the action against him for failure to serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Kroop, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiffs commenced the instant action by service of a summons with notice dated January 7, 1988. On May 9, 1988, the appellant served a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint. By letter dated July 28, 1988, Kroop again *352demanded that a copy of the complaint be served within 20 days thereafter. As a result of the plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the above demands, on August 29, 1988, Kroop moved to dismiss the action as against him pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b).

Thereafter, on September 22, 1988, the plaintiffs served a verified complaint which Kroop rejected as a nullity due to its untimeliness. In opposition to the appellant’s motion, the plaintiffs submitted a physician’s unsworn affirmation. That affirmation merely asserted the injuries allegedly due to the malpractice, without detailing any evidentiary facts. The trial court denied the motion.

CPLR 3012 (b) requires that a plaintiff serve the complaint within 20 days after service of a defendant’s demand therefor. If the complaint is not thereafter properly served, and the defendant moves to dismiss, the plaintiff must include in his opposition to the motion both a reasonable excuse for the delay and a sworn affidavit of merit *(see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells,*64 NY2d 904; *Niedermeier v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs.,*143 AD2d 78; *Dwyer v Gerstel,*138 AD2d 561).

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court erred, as a matter of law, in denying defendant Kroop’s motion to dismiss the action as against him *(see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, supra).*Nowhere in the record does there appear any excuse, reasonable or otherwise, for the delay. Although the verified complaint may constitute an adequate substitute for an affidavit of merit *(see,*CPLR 105 [t]; *Brooks v New York City Hous. Auth.,*159 AD2d 673; *Egan v Federated Dept. Stores,*108 AD2d 718, 719), the failure of the verified complaint and the affirmation of the physician in the instant case fails to adequately set forth evidentiary facts regarding the claimed malpractice sufficient to establish a prima facie case *(see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, supra,*at 905). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
----

----

| Dated: | May 13, 2014 |   | /s/ Dawn Johnston                   |
|--------|--------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |         |   | Dawn Johnston                       |
|   |         |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer and |
|   |         |   | Principal Financial Officer         |
|   |         |   |                                |

----

----
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 of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John V. Winfield, 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, to the best of my knowledge,
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.


Date: November 12, 2010                         /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6768 

To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to 

reauthorize the First Responder Network Authority. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2022 

Mrs. DEMINGS (for herself and Mrs. FLETCHER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act of 2012 to reauthorize the First Responder Network 

Authority. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF FIRST RESPONDER 

4 NETWORK AUTHORITY. 

5 Section 6206 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

6 Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1426) is amended by 

7 striking subsections (f) and (g). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ted J. STANCZAK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30268. D.C. No. CR-00-00330-026-TSZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Ted J. Stanczak appeals his 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Stanczak contends that the district court clearly erred when it denied his request for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We disagree. Stanczak’s conduct here did not make him “substantially less culpable than the average participant” in this conspiracy. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment, (n.3). Moreover, we have previously ruled that possession of a substantial amount of drugs, such as the 15 kilograms of methamphetamine at issue in the present case, provides an adequate reason for denying a mitigating role adjustment. *See United States v. Lui,*941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (concluding that 12 kilograms of heroin was a “substantial” amount of drugs, and accordingly it was not clear error to deny a mitigating role adjustment based on the defendant’s possession of that quantity of narcotics).

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.
**Exhibit 31**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR5 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement ofa  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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

Date:  March 15, 2007

 

  /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann_________Name:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      45
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                             9150
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          9195
<PP&E>                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            9195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                  9145
<OTHER-SE>                                  34
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              9195
<SALES>                                    458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           458
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            42
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        416
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                               416
<EPS-BASIC>                              .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .28


</TABLE>
Description of Bonus arrangements



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Bonus Arrangement for Chief Executive Officer and President, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice-President
and Chief Operating Officer, and Vice-President – Product Procurement, Marketing, and Logistics 
  
 Fastenal Company’s Chief Executive Officer and President, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, and Vice-President – Product Procurement, Marketing, and Logistics are paid a bonus under
individual bonus arrangements. Under these arrangements, the bonus for any quarter is calculated based on the amount by which the Company’s consolidated pre-tax income for such quarter exceeds the Company’s consolidated pre-tax income for
the same quarter in the prior year. 
  
 Fastenal Company’s Executive
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer is paid a bonus under an individual bonus arrangement. Under that arrangement, the bonus for any quarter is calculated based on the amount by which the Company’s consolidated net income for such
quarter exceeds a percentage of such quarter’s consolidated net sales.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.12  


 
 

PROMISSORY NOTE    
    



	$200,000.00	 	March 2, 2005
	 	 	Denver, Colorado





        For
value received, VITACUBE SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of MATHIS FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD ("Holder"), at 2560 W. Main
Street, Suite 200, Littleton, CO 80120, or at such other address as may be designated in writing from time to time by the Holder of this Note, the principal sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($200,000.00), or if less, the principal amount of the Advances made by Holder together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable on May 30, 2005, or closing of the Public Offering
which ever occurs first. "Public Offering" means the public offering of the Maker's securities which is described in the Registration Statement on Form SB-2 (Registration
No. 333-121063) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2004, as amended. 


        Holder
agrees to advance funds (the "Advances") to the Maker on an as needed basis as requested by the Maker up to the maximum principal amount of this Note. 


        At
the option of the Holder of this Note, the repayment of all principal and interest due in accordance with the terms of this Note will be accelerated, and such principal
immediately shall be due and payable, without notice or demand, upon the occurrence of any of the following events of default: 



	(a)
	Dissolution,
termination of existence, insolvency, or business failure of the Maker;



	(b)
	Attachment,
garnishment or appointment of a receiver of any material part of the property of the Maker; and



	(c)
	Assignment
for the benefit of creditors by, or the commencement of any proceedings under, any bankruptcy or insolvency laws by or against the Maker. 




        Upon
default, the indebtedness evidenced by this Note shall bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Holder shall be entitled to collect all costs and expenses of
collection and/or suit, including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees. 


        This
Note may be prepaid at any time and from time to time in any amount or amounts, without penalty or additional interest charges. 


        Presentment
for payment, notice of dishonor, and protest are hereby waived by the Maker. 


        This
Note is executed in the City and County of Denver, Colorado, and is to be governed and construed pursuant to the laws of Colorado. The courts located in the City and County
of Denver, State of Colorado, shall have subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Note, and venue for any proceeding to enforce the terms of this Note shall be
proper in the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado. 



	

 	
 	
VITACUBE SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
	
 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  MARY PAT O'HALLORAN      
 Mary Pat O'Halloran, Chief Financial Officer













QuickLinks


PROMISSORY NOTE
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 17, 2014. 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, October 17, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15A0332. THE STATE v. JOSEPH ANDREW BAGWELL.
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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q for the nine-months
ended September 27, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          23,500
<SECURITIES>                                    12,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                  537,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (30,200)
<INVENTORY>                                    580,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,426,000
<PP&E>                                       1,924,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,387,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,196,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,146,900
<BONDS>                                        300,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     386,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,196,600
<SALES>                                      1,304,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,304,100
<CGS>                                          754,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,270,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
#### Claude L. Pyle, Appellant-Respondent, v Estate of Thomas G. Miller et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff *821and defendants each appeal from an order granting in part plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. The order declared that defendants are owners in fee of parcels bounded on the west by the low water mark of Cayuga Lake and that plaintiff is an upland riparian owner. The order also declared that plaintiffs exercise of his riparian rights may not unreasonably interfere with defendants’ rights as owners of land between the high and low water marks of the lake. The court correctly interpreted the unambiguous language of the deed from plaintiff’s predecessors in interest to the Cayuga Lake Railroad Company, defendants’ predecessor in interest, finding that it granted to the railroad all the land to the west of the "centre line” and that the qualifier in the deed applied only to the land to the east of the center line. With respect to plaintiff’s riparian rights, however, the court erred in giving collateral estoppel effect to the trial court’s decision in *Lehigh Val. R. R. Co. v Pyle*(20 AD2d 954) because the issue, although present in the case and conceded by Lehigh Valley Railroad, was not an essential issue in the case and was not litigated *(see, Kaufman v Lilly & Co.,*65 NY2d 449, 455-456). However, on the merits, the court correctly found that plaintiff, as an upland owner, retained all riparian rights that his predecessors in interest had before conveying land intervening between a navigable body of water and the adjacent upland to the railroad, defendants’ predecessor in interest *(see, Matter of City of Buffalo,*206 NY 319, 329, *mot to amend remittitur denied*206 NY 731). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Boehm, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.