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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.10

                                Amendment No. 1,

                           Adopted September 28, 2001,

                      to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of

                             McLeodUSA Incorporated

3.7  Committees of Directors.

          The Board of Directors may designate one or more committees, each
committee to consist of one or more directors, which to the extent provided in
said resolution or resolutions shall have and may exercise the powers and
authority of the Board of Directors in the management of the business and
affairs of the Corporation (including the power and authority to designate other
committees of the Board of Directors); provided, however, that no such committee
shall have the power or authority in reference to the following matters: (i)
approving or adopting, or recommending to the stockholders, any action or matter
expressly required by the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware to be
submitted to stockholders for approval or (ii) adopting, amending, or repealing
any Bylaw of the Corporation. The Board of Directors may designate one or more
directors as alternate members of any committee to replace any absent or
disqualified member of the committee. In the absence or disqualification of a
member of a committee, the member or members present at any meeting of such
committee and not disqualified from voting, whether or not such member or
members constitute a quorum, may unanimously appoint another member of the Board
of Directors to act at the meeting in place of such absent or disqualified
director. Such committee or committees shall have such name or names as may be
determined from time to time by resolution adopted by the Board of Directors.
Each Committee shall keep regular minutes of its meetings and report the same to
the Board of Directors, when required. Unless otherwise specified in the Board
resolutions appointing the Committee, all provisions of the Delaware General
Corporation Law and these Bylaws relating to meetings, action without meetings
(and waiver thereof), and quorum and voting requirements of the Board of
Directors apply, as well, to such committees and their members.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 2, 2014

NO. 03
- 12
- 00691
- CV

Grace Shamel and Stephen Shamel, Appellant s

v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee of Th e Arch Bay Asset
- Backed Securities Trust 2010
- 2, by its Attorney
- in
- Fact and Servicer
- in
- Fact; Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Clauklin LLC; and

Capital City Relocation, LLC , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 353RD D ISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, RO SE, AND GOODWIN AFFIRMED ON REHEARING
-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the distri ct court on August 30, 2012. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the district court’s judgment

. We therefore order that the motion for rehearing filed by appellants is denied; that the opinion and judgment dated August 29, 2014, are withdrawn; and that the C ourt affirms the district court’s judgment

. The appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### STATE ex rel. Jessie ST. AMANT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2749.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re St. Amant, Jessie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 12-08-0566; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1108.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,111
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,128
<PP&E>                                       7,451,534
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,122,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,536,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,536,343
<SALES>                                      1,060,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,065,283
<CGS>                                          458,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,457,347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,392,064)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,392,064)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,392,064)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### MOORE, THOMPSON, LEE & BROYLES v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Progressive Security Insurance Company, and Amy Porche, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Daughter, Emily Brossett.

No. 2011-CC-0620.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Brossett, Emily; Porche, Amy; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory *981and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 580,171; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2091.

Denied.
#### Kimberly Crittenden DAIGLE v. Merrill LYNCH, et al.

No. 2012-C-0523.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

*1254In re Daigle, Kenneth Paul; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. C2005-2784; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA11-965.

Denied.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 250

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-17-474

DANIELLE BLAIR

APPELLANT

V.

RANDALL WILLIS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: September 14, 2017

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 26DR-15-686]

HONORABLE LYNN WILLIAMS, 

JUDGE

DISSENT ON DENIAL OF

PETITION FOR REVIEW.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Associate Justice

I would grant appellant’s petition asking that this court review the decision of the 

Arkansas Court of Appeals in Blair v. Willis, 2017 Ark. App. 324, 521 S.W.3d 535. As noted 

by the court of appeals, the issues raised by appellant on appeal were (1) whether appellee’s 

petition for child support should be considered a request for modification of child support, 

and (2) whether equitable principles barred appellee’s request for child support. 

Nevertheless, in a paragraph that is dicta and addresses issues not argued on appeal, the court

of appeals cites to Fonken v. Fonken, 334 Ark. 637, 976 S.W.2d 952 (1998), and concludes 

that the case supports the circuit court’s decision to award retroactive child support from 

2002 to 2007 to a parent who no longer has physical custody of the children. The gist of

Fonken is its interpretation of Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-14-105(c) (Repl. 2015), which

provides that “[a]ny person eighteen (18) years of age or above to whom support was owed 
Cite as 2017 Ark. 250

2

during his or her minority may file a petition for a judgment against the nonsupporting 

parent or parents.” 

Unlike Fonken, there is no child in this case seeking child support. Thus, Fonken has 

no bearing on the case at bar. Rather, the circuit court is awarding child support to a parent

who does not have physical custody of the children. This award is plainly contrary to

Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-14-105(b)(1), which provides that the person seeking child 

support must have “physical custody of a minor child.” See Hardy v. Wilbourne, 370 Ark. 

359, 365, 259 S.W.3d 405, 410 (2007) (stating that the “plain language of subsection (b)(1) 

requires that the parent petitioning for an order of child support have physical custody of 

the child”). Thus, the court of appeals has taken money out of the household in which two 

teenage children physically reside and transferred the funds to a household where the 

children do not physically reside. This result is the exact situation that the statute was 

designed to prevent. Given the court of appeals’ troubling analysis, I would grant the 

petition for review.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 5, 2018

No. 04-17-00197-CV

Francisco SANCHEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY- SAN ANTONIO,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-06141

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 7, 2018, after the court reporter notified this court that Appellant had not paid 

for the record, we ordered Appellant to provide written proof to this court that (1) the reporter’s 

fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee, or (2) Appellant is 

entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. 

Appellant timely filed a response. He asks this court to consider his appeal without a 

reporter’s record, in part because the reporter’s record “is of limited value to Appellant’s points 

of error.” Cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(1) (appellant requests record). 

In the University’s reply to Appellant’s response, the University states it “respectfully 

objects to [Appellant’s] claim that the trial transcript is of limited value on appeal and asserts that 

the transcript is both necessary and adds value to this Court’s review.” However, the University 

did not state that it will request and pay for the reporter’s record. Cf. id. 

In Appellant’s response to the University’s reply, Appellant reiterated his assertion that 

the reporter’s record was of limited value and again asked for his appeal to proceed without a 

reporter’s record.

Appellant’s request to submit this appeal without a reporter’s record is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, and the court will only 

“consider and decide those issues or points [raised in Appellant’s brief] that do not require a 

reporter’s record for a decision.” See id. R. 37.3(c).
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Jamie MORALES and Kodie Morales v. Victor RUCKER, Miller’s RV Center d/b/a Anmar Services, Inc., American Southern Home Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-0577.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re American Southern Home Insurance Company; —Defendants; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 582,495; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2011.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 132 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 132

   To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to 
  depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who 
  unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mr. Gallegly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to 
  depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who 
  unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.

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

SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES RELATING TO VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE.

    Section 240B(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1229c(d)) is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Civil 
        Penalty'' and inserting ``Civil and Criminal Penalties'';
            (2) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
                subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so 
                redesignated) the following:
                    ``(A) shall be imprisoned for a term of years not 
                less than 1 and not more than 4 and fined in accordance 
                with title 18, United States Code;'';
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
            (4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) Reentry of departed aliens.--Whoever is permitted to 
        depart voluntarily under this section, and thereafter enters, 
        attempts to enter, or is present in, the United States in 
        violation of law shall be imprisoned for a term of years not 
        less than 1 and not more than 4 and fined in accordance with 
        title 18, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
exhibitforborders12238-kexte.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





           Exhibit 10.3







December 22, 2008

Borders Group, Inc. 

100 Phoenix Drive 

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Attention:  Mr. George L. Jones,

                 President and Chief Executive Officer

EXTENSION OF PURCHASE OFFER

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to our letter to you, dated as of April 9, 2008 (the “Purchase Offer Letter”). Capitalized terms used but not defined have the meanings specified in the Purchase Offer Letter.

     This confirms your and our agreement that the Drop-Dead Date is hereby extended to February 16, 2009, or such later date as you and we may mutually agree in writing. Except as expressly modified hereby, all terms and conditions of the Purchase Offer Letter will remain in full force and effect.

     This letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

[signatures on following page]

 








 


	Very truly yours,  
	  
	  
	  
	PERSHING SQUARE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.  
	By:  PS Management GP, LLC, its General Partner  
	    
	By:  /s/ William A. Ackman                               
	Name: William A. Ackman, Managing Member  


  

	Agreed to and accepted this  
	22nd day of December, 2008  
	  
	BORDERS GROUP, INC.  
	  
	  
	By:  /s/ George L. Jones                             
	Name: George L. Jones  
	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer  



-2-
| (1)   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:        | December 8, 2010      | /s/ James A. Hughes                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |                  |  James A. Hughes                                      |
|                                                   |                  |  President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|                                                   |                  |                                                       |
|  Dated:                                 | December 8, 2010 | /s/ Alan J. Bedner, Jr.                          |
|                                                   |                  |  Alan J. Bedner, Jr.                                  |
|                                                   |                  |  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

----
#### Eugene E. MORI, Appellant, v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., and Judith Vondra, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D11-2109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 27, 2012.

David M. Goldstein and Ergio I. Fernandez, Miami, for appellant.

Kula & Samson and Elliot B. Kula and Daniel M. Samson (Aventura), for appel-lees Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Judith Von-dra.

Before ROTHENBERG and FERNANDEZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Law-Yue v. Miami River, LLC,*50 So.3d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); *Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Voigt,*21 So.3d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); *DR Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of W. Palm Beach,*819 So.2d 971, 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); *In re Estate of Barsanti v. Cypen,*773 So.2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
**EXHIBIT23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8Nos. 333-139977, 333-137872 and 333-143495 and Form S-3Nos. 333-140074 and 333-136335) of Force Protection, Inc. andin the related Prospectuses of our reports dated March 2, 2007, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ForceProtection, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Force Protection, Inc., included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.
| /s/ JASPERS  + HALL, PC |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Denver, Colorado        |   |
| July 12, 2007           |   |

 

----
(Logo)
                                WELLS FARGO BANK

                  Annual Certification for Calendar Year 1996

Dear Investor:

This is to certify the  following  items with  respect to real  estate  loans we
service on your behalf.

   We have complied  with all  applicable  provisions of the executed  servicing
   agreement and/or servicing guidelines.

   Servicing is in compliance with applicable  state and federal laws, HUD or VA
   regulations, and all the terms of the loan documents.

   Taxes, mortgage insurance, flood and/or hazard insurance and assessments have
   been  paid,  if  applicable,  by  Wells  Fargo  Bank as  required  by  escrow
   agreements and regulations.  Payment of taxes and insurance by borrowers,  if
   applicable,  is tracked  and  verified  using  normal  industry  methods  and
   standards.

   Insurance  policies are in possession of Wells Fargo Bank, or its  authorized
   insurance  vendor,  as  required  by the  terms of our  mortgage  impairment
   coverage.

   ARM rate and payment changes are made according to contractual and regulatory
   requirements,  and payment change notices sent as required by law. An ongoing
   audit process ensures the integrity of our on-line information.

   Interest  is paid on escrow  funds in  compliance  with all federal and state
   laws, regulations, and contracts.

   Loan documents are held in our vault, at 401 West 24th Street, National City,
   California,  91950,  or  by  a  document  custodian  pursuant  to  applicable
   servicing contracts.

   All IRS  information  returns,  including IRS Forms,  1098 Mortgage  Interest
   Statement,  and 1099-A  Acquisition or Abandonment  are filed pursuant to IRS
   regulations.


Certified by:  /s/ Joan M. Coppenrath
               Joan M. Coppenrath, Vice President
               Loan Servicing Manager, Mortgage Lending Servicing

certific.doc

                     P.O. BOX 85071 San Diego, CA 92186-5071
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard Wendell WELCH.

No. 2011-KP-0759.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Welch, Richard Wendell; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2003-.161545; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2357.

Denied.
LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
Exhibit 32.1




---



##### 



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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieDeirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Gail A. SloanGail A. SloanVice President of Finance and Secretary Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Smith, President and
Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended October 1, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ David A. SmithDavid
A. Smith President and Chief Executive Officer

November 10, 2004