alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATE OF KARA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

                    A NEVADA CORPORATION,

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 78.207 (4) OF THE

                   NEVADA REVISED STATUTES

  FIRST:  The name of the corporation is Kara International,
Inc. (the "Company").

  SECOND:  On April 9, 1997, the Board of Directors of the
Company and the majority stockholder unanimously consented
to a reverse split of the Company's outstanding common stock
in the ratio of one new share for every five shares
outstanding as of the date of filing of this Certificate,
with fractional shares being rounded up to the next whole
share, while retaining the current authorized shares and par
value, with appropriate adjustments to the additional paid
in capital and stated capital accounts of the Company.

  THIRD: The number of authorized shares and the par value
of the Company's common stock immediately before the above-
referenced resolutions were 50,000,000 shares at one mill
($0.001), respectively.

  FOURTH: The number of authorized shares and the par value
of the Company's common stock immediately after the above-
referenced resolutions were 50,000,000 shares and one mill
($0.001), respectively.

  FIFTH: The number of shares of the Company's common stock
to be issued after the reverse split in exchange for each
pre-split share of common stock is 1/5 of one share.

  SIXTH: No fractional shares will be issued as a result of
the reverse split.  There is no provision for the payment of
money or the issuance of scrip to stockholders otherwise
entitled to a fraction of a share as a result of the reverse
split.

  SEVENTH: The approval of the affected stockholders is not
required and has not been sought; however, persons who own a
majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Company
have adopted, ratified and approved the reverse split.

  EIGHTH: The above-referenced resolutions will be effective
as of the date of filing of this Certificate with the
Secretary of State of the State of Nevada.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned executive officers of
the Company hereby execute this Certificate on the 10th day
of April, 1997.
                                   /s/David C. Merrell,
                                      President

                                  /s/ Michael C. Brown,
                                      Secretary/Treasurer

STATE OF UTAH          }
                        } ss
COUNTY of SALT LAKE    }

  David C. Merrell and Michael C. Brown, hereby acknowledge
that they are the President and Secretary/Treasurer,
respectively, of Kara International, Inc., that they have
read the foregoing information, and of their personal
knowledge, represent and warrant that such information is
true and correct in every material respect.

                             11
<PAGE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF J.L.J.

February 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 196 *N.J.Super.*34)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>           MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   233,906
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              2,643
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         239,686
<PP&E>                                                 5,677,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                         1,713,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         4,221,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    174,995
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                             4,046,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           4,221,376
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         358,468
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            268,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           90,023
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       90,023
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                              90,023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

NANO CHEMICAL SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.

The undersigned, as directors of Nano Chemical Systems Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada (the
Company), hereby certify that the following is a complete and correct copy of the resolutions adopted at a telephonic meeting of the Companys Board of Directors held on October 25, 2006 pursuant to N.R.S. 78.320:

WHEREAS, James Ray, Henry Simpson, and Shannon Norwood were present, constituting a quorum of the members of the Companys Board of
Directors, AND

WHEREAS, Tina Dennis, the Companys current Chief Financial Officer has fallen ill and, as a result,
cannot, at present, fulfill her duties,

BE IT RESOLVED, That the Corporation hereby elects Shannon Norwood as Interim Chief
Financial Officer, to serve until such time as the current Chief Financial Officer, Tina Dennis, has convalesced and can fulfill her duties or until the Companys Board of Directors elects a new Chief Financial Officer.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Board of Directors hereby authorizes, empowers, and directs the Companys Chief Executive Officer to execute and
deliver, on behalf of the Company, any agreements, instruments or documents necessary to carry out the purposes of the above-referenced matters and to do any and all other acts and things, on behalf of the Company, which he may deem necessary or
advisable to carry out, perform, or effect the intent and purpose of the foregoing written actions.

Dated: As of October 25, 2006

WITNESS THE EXECUTION hereof by the undersigned.



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|                                            
|/s/ James Ray                               
|James Ray Chairman of the Board of Directors



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|                                              
|/s/ Henry Simpson                             
|Henry Simpson Member of the Board of Directors





|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|                                                
|/s/ Shannon Norwood                             
|Shannon Norwood Member of the Board of Directors
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 

 ** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRADLEY D. AUSMUS and

ELIZABETH A. AUSMUS,

Plaintiffs-Appelants, 

 v.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY;

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,

INC. DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE

 Defendants-Appellees. 

Nos. 09-55831

 09-56137

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-2342-L-LSP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 3, 2010

Pasadena, California

Before: GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District

Judge.** 

FILED

FEB 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

This is an insurance coverage dispute filed by Bradley and Elizabeth Ausmus

(the “Ausmuses”) against Lexington Insurance Company and American International

Group, Inc. (collectively “Lexington”). (AIG was the parent company of Lexington.)

The Ausmues are seeking insurance coverage for defective work performed by a

contractor, a Lexington insured. The district court dismissed the Complaint pursuant

to Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(6), finding the claims were barred by one of the policy

exclusions. A later Motion to Vacate Judgment was denied. 

The district court concluded the policy exclusion was (a) plain, clear and

conspicuous, and (b) the insurer was not required to provide its insured with advance

notice of the reduction in coverage. The district court also concluded that the

Ausmuses failed to raise their California common law argument in opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss, thereby waiving that argument in their later Motion to Vacate

Judgment. 

This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and the denial of a

motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment for an abuse of discretion, Ta

Chong Bank Ltd. v. Hitachi High Techs. Am., Inc., 610 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.

2010) (citing McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003)). 
-3-

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs,

we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district

court’s opinions carefully and correctly set out the law governing the issues raised,

and clearly articulate the reasons underlying its decisions, issuance of a full written

opinion by this Court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons

stated in the district court’s opinions dated April 22, 2009 and July 15, 2009,

respectively, we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Troy H. Lowrie, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10-KSB of VCG Holding Corp. for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2006;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business
issuers other certifying officer 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 small business issuer and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within that entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors:

(a) all significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal controls which could adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small business issuers
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls.



|                    |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: April 2, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Troy H. Lowrie                    
|                    |  |  |  | Troy H. Lowrie Chief Executive
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 54148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22051]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 1, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice 
President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. GV Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Gunnison, Utah; to 
acquire additional voting shares of GV Bancorp and thereby indirectly 
acquire shares of Gunnison Valley Bank, all of Gunnison, Utah.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 31, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-22051 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL


OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of National Investment Managers Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      May 14, 2010
                    /s/
      Steven J. RossSteven
      J. RossChief
      Executive OfficerDated:
      May 14, 2010
                    /s/
      Christopher W. LarkinChristopher
      W. LarkinChief
      Financial
Officer
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 20-BG-659

IN RE ALLISON C. DIERCKS, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 208762)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional 

Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Four

Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline 

(DDN 43-19)

(Decided: January 7, 2021)

Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. 

XI, § 12.1(d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion.

In this disciplinary matter, Hearing Committee Number Four (the 

Committee) recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline. 

See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c). The petition is based on Respondent’s voluntary 

acknowledgment that she failed to provide her client competent representation.
2

Respondent acknowledged that she intentionally prejudiced or damaged her 

client during the course of the professional relationship, knowingly revealed a 

confidence or secret of her client, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. As a result, Respondent violated D.C. Rules of 

Professional Conduct 1.3(b), 1.6(a), and 8.4(c). The proposed discipline is a 

suspension for eighteen months with reinstatement conditioned upon proof of 

fitness.

Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our 

procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we 

agree this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and the proposed disposition 

is not unduly lenient or inconsistent with dispositions imposed for comparable 

professional misconduct. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Respondent Allison C. Diercks is hereby suspended from 

the practice of law in the District of Columbia for eighteen months with 

reinstatement conditioned upon proof of fitness. Additionally, we direct 

Respondent’s attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), which requires the filing of an 

affidavit with this court for purposes of reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar 

R. XI, § 16 and D.C. Board R. 9. 

So ordered.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7291

STEVEN LAMONT JOEL SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDR. MOORE, Assistant Warden; DEBORAH G. WOODSON, Sec/Supervisor; V. JONES; VIRGINIA B.THEISEN; B. HARRIS; D. GRAHAM; ALTON BASKERVILLE; CAPTAIN ROWLETT; R. BEDWELL; SGT. COLEMAN; LIEUTENANT THOMAS; W. P. ROGERS; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees, and LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden; SERGEANT MILLING; LIEUTENANT GREGORY; SGT. RICHARDSON; CAPTAIN JONES; CAPTAIN ARTIS; MARK L. EARLEY, Attorney General of Virginia, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-272-AM) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 28, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.* To the extent that the district court held that Scott failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 - 12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 2000), we affirm. We do not express an opinion concerning the constitutionality of the ADA as applied to state prisons. 2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Lamont Joel Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Steven Lamont Joel Scott appeals the district court’s orderdenying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * Scott v. Moore , No. CA-00-272-AM (E.D. Va. filed July 31, 2000; entered Aug. 2, 2000). We deny Scott’s motion for general relief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAFAEL VEA-MARTINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10049

D.C. No. 4:08-cr-01522-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Vea-Martinez appeals from the 97-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and

FILED

JAN 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10049

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vea-Martinez contends the district court erred by applying the wrong

standard when evaluating whether he should receive a minor role adjustment under

the Sentencing Guidelines. He maintains that as a result of this error, the district

court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the

district court applied the correct standard in denying the adjustment, and that it did

not clearly err by determining that Vea-Martinez did not sustain his burden of

showing that he was substantially less culpable than his co-participants. See

United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-84 (9th Cir. 2006). The record

further indicates that, under the totality of the circumstances, Vea-Martinez’s

below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

AFFIRMED.
#### KAPLAN & SONS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE.

June 13, 1985.

Direct certification granted.