alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This scedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from Q-Seven
Systems, Inc. December 31, 1999 Audited Financial Statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           57534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   388112
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            1359
<DEPRECIATION>                                     737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  446268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           403318
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         12500
<OTHER-SE>                                       30450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    446268
<SALES>                                        1296154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1300329
<CGS>                                           554249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1297872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2457
<INCOME-TAX>                                     35674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (33217)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (33217)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 3.6

CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY

OF

MEADE INSTRUMENTS CORP.,
a Delaware corporation

The undersigned, Steven G. Murdock, does hereby certify that he is the
Secretary of Meade Instruments Corp., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
and that attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true, complete and correct copy of
the amendment to Article III, Section 3.02(a), of the Amended and Restated
Bylaws of the Company, adopted effective as of May 28, 2003.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed his name to this
certificate this 28th day of May, 2003.

| |  |                            
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | /s/ Steven G. Murdock      
| |  | Steven G. Murdock
Secretary





---



##### 



EXHIBIT A

Amendment to Article III, Section 3.02(a), of
the Amended and Restated Bylaws of
Meade Instruments Corp.,
a Delaware corporation

The second sentence of Article III, Section 3.02(a), of the Amended and
Restated Bylaws is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:



| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | The exact number of directors shall be six (6) until changed, within
the limits specified above, by resolution, duly approved by the Board
of Directors.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 59259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24085]



[[Page 59259]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2661-000]


Viridian Energy NY LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 16, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Viridian Energy NY LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb8d8e998884a5a7a2a5ae98bebbbba4b9bf8badaeb9a8e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6f0f3e4f5f9d8dadfd8d3e5c3c6c6d9c4c2f6d0d3c4d598d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24085 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kernell HOWARD.

No. 2011-KO-1073.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Howard, Kernell; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or *1174Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 09-2968; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-541.

Denied.
#### Walter McCOLLUM, et al., Appellants, v. LIEBHERR-AMERICA, INC., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D10-332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 2011.

Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin and Brenton N. Ver Ploeg, Danya J. Pincavage, Miami and Cayla B. Tenenbaum; McKenna & Obront and Paul A. McKenna and Curt D. Obront, Miami, for appellants.

Morris & Stella and Joseph N. Stella, Jeffrey W. Gunn and John M. Dugan, Chicago; Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt and J. Matthew Belcastro, Ft. Myers, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN and SUAREZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Perera v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.,*35 So.3d 893 (Fla.2010); *Christiansen v. Holiday Rent-A-Car,*845 P.2d 1316 (Utah App.1992).
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
OF ADVOCAT INC.
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2009
  (a)
    
    fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/ William R. Council, IIIWilliam R. Council, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/ L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Lucas RODDY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1852.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Roddy, Lucas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 14222; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0707.

Denied. In the event that relator seeks documents under the Public Records Law, he must first address his request to the records’ custodians. R.S. 44:31 et seq.; *State ex rel. Shelton v. State,*00-1901 (La.9/14/01), 796 So.2d 672; *State ex rel. McKnight v. State,*98-2258 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/3/98), 742 So.2d 894.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated September 16,
2003, except for the last paragraph of Note 2 as to which the date is October 8,
2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Blue
Rhino Corporation included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
July 31, 2003, in the following Registration Statements:


         o        Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60366, and 333-80909) pertaining to the
                  Company's Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan for
                  Non-Employee Directors, as amended;

         o        Form S-8 (No. 333-80907) pertaining to the Company's 1994
                  Stock Incentive Plan;

         o        Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60368, 333-80911, 333-83262, and
                  333-102394) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock Incentive
                  Plan, as amended; and

         o        Form S-8 (No. 333-94039) pertaining to the Company's Employee
                  Stock Purchase Plan.

         o        Form S-3 (Nos. 333-96593, 333-86798, 333-69790, 333-46540,
                  333-90897, and 333-102393)




                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Greensboro, North Carolina
October 17, 2003
SECOND EXTENSION OF TERM AGREEMENT

         This Second Extension of Term Agreement is made as of November 19, 1999
by and between OCWEN ASSET INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation (the
"Company"), and OCWEN CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation (the
"Manager"), with respect to the First Amended and Restated Management Agreement,
dated as of May 19, 1997, and amended and restated as of May 5, 1998, and
extended as of May 19, 1999 (the "Management Agreement"), between the Company
and the Manager.

                                   WITNESSETH:

                  WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager are parties to the
Management Agreement;

                  WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Management Agreement provides that
the Management Agreement shall continue in force until November 19, 1999;

                  WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the
Management Agreement indefinitely; and

                  WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the
indefinite extension of the term of the Management Agreement.


                  NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties
hereto agree as follows:

                  SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TERM. The first two paragraphs of
Section 13 of the Management Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and
replaced by the following:

                  This Agreement shall continue in force until terminated by the
                  Manager or by the Company as described below or elsewhere in
                  this Agreement.

                  Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this
                  Agreement may be terminated by the Manager, upon 60 days'
                  written notice, on any anniversary of this Second Extension of
                  Term Agreement.

                  SECTION 2. EFFECT OF EXTENSION. Except as expressly set forth
herein, this Second Extension of Term Agreement shall not by implication alter,
modify, amend or in any way affect any of the other terms, conditions,

<PAGE>


obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Management Agreement, all
of which shall continue in full force and effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Second Extension of Term Agreement as of the date first written above.


                          OCWEN ASSET INVESTMENT CORP.

                          By: /s/ CHRISTINE A. REICH
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                  Christine A. Reich
                                  President


                          OCWEN CAPITAL CORPORATION

                          By: /s/ JOHN R. ERBEY
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                  John R. Erbey
                                  Senior Managing Director

                                       2
#### Debrah SOWEMIMO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. D.A.O.R. SECURITY, INC. and Mohammed Islam, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 00-7342(L), 00-7868(XAP).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2001.

Ronald Cohen, Ingber & Ingber, Greenwich, CT, for appellants.

Anthony C. Ofodile, Brooklyn, NY, for appellee.

Present FEINBERG, PARKER, Circuit Judges, and COVELLO *, District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Alfred V. Covello, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendants-appellants D.A.O.R. Security, Inc. and Mohammed Islam (“appellants”) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.) entered on February 22, 2000, awarding plaintiff-appellee Debrah Sowemimo (“ap-pellee”) judgment in the sum of $6,240.00, and from its order dated May 4, 2000 denying appellants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, or for a new trial. *See Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.,*No. 97 Civ. 1083(RLC), 2000 WL 546439 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2000).

In addition, all parties appeal from the order of that court entered on June 30, 2000 granting appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees in the limited amount of $40,412.50. *See Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.,*No. 97 CIV. 1083(RLC), 2000 WL 890229, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2000).

In its May 4, 2000 order denying appellants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, or for a new trial, the court rejected appellants’ contention that appellee had *83not presented a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge and that appellee had not shown that D.A.O.R.’s proffered justification for terminating her was pretext, and declined to disturb the jury’s conclusion that appellants had acted in reckless disregard of appellee’s rights under Title VII.

In its order of June 30, 2000 granting appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees, the court rejected appellants’ argument that appellee’s damage award was so small as to be “de minimus,” and made a number of adjustments to appellee’s counsels’ submitted fee request.

We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. *See Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.,*No. 97 Civ. 1083(RLC), 2000 WL 546439, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2000); *Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.,*No. 97 CIV. 1083(RLC), 2000 WL 890229, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2000).
579 A.2d 308

#### IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN P. KERNAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 17, 1990.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Henry LANEHEART v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0397.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Laneheart, Henry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 389-162; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1785.

Denied.
#### David L. STARKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOYGASHEL USA, INC., Moygashel Ltd., Defendants-Appellees, Lamont Holdings, Pic., Defendant.

No. 00-7418.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2001.

David L. Starky, New York, NY, pro se.

Selvyn Seidel, Latham & Watkins, New York, NY; Matthew T. Martens, of counsel, for appellee.

Present FEINBERG, PARKER, Circuit Judges and COVELLO * District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Alfred V. Covello, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

David L. Starky, *pro se,*appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Berman, J.) entered on March 10, 2000 granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In this diversity action, Starky alleged below that defendants breached the terms and conditions of his employment “contract” with Moygashel USA, were unjustly enriched by his services, made fraudulent misrepresentations, engaged in religious discrimination, and retaliated against him in violation of New Jersey law. Starky claims on appeal that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on his breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims. Starky additionally claims that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to conduct additional discovery pursuant to his cross-motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).1

We affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in *Starky v. Moygashel USA, Inc.,*No. 96 Civ. 1661(RMB) (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2000).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. We note that Starky does not appeal with respect to his retaliation and religious discrimination claims against Moygashel; thus, those claims are considered abandoned. *See LoSacco v. City of Middletown,*71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).
#### Lamir Lee GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1184.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 14, 2010.

*509James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Roller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2).

MONACO, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
#### Keith DAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-1943.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 9, 2011.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Therese A. Savona, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Keith Dawson appeals his convictions for dealing in stolen property and false verification of ownership on a pawnbroker transaction form. He contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the inference arising from selling property below fair market value. The instruction given accurately states the law, but there is no evidence in the record *1078of the fair market value. We are compelled by our prior decision in a nearly identical case to find that this was error. *See, Barfield v. State,*613 So.2d 507, 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Because we are unable to say the error was harmless, we reverse.

REVERSED.

PADOVANO, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              TERM LIMITS

  (Mr. GUTIERREZ asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, after the Supreme Court ruled yesterday 
on the issue of term limits, you heard a lot of complaining.
  One who protested the loudest was the distinguished majority leader.
  In fact, Mr. Armey promised that a vote on term limits would be the 
first vote in the next Congress.
  In January 1997--if he is relected--Mr. Armey will get sworn in for 
his seventh term, then turn around and vote for a bill that says that 
serving more than six terms is hazardous to the political health of our 
Nation.
  If you think term limits is such a good idea, here is the solution: 
Here is a map of Washington.
  Here is the Capitol. Here is the airport.
  It is a short drive, and parking is a breeze because Members of 
Congress still have that perk.
  From there, you can go back to the Sixth District of Georgia, the 
Eighth District of Florida, or anywhere else where someone got elected 
by talking about term limits.
  Remember, my friends on the other side of the aisle--the Supreme 
Court decision will not bar you from acting honorably, from following 
through on your campaign promises and Republican rhetoric.
  That decision is still in your hands.
  

                          ____________________
```
#### Robert F. KAYE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-3218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 1, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Leonard R. Ross, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Megan Saillant, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Kaye appeals the trial court’s failure to award him credit for time served. We affirm. Kaye was sentenced on a revocation of probation on August 31, 2010. At sentencing, he did not object when the trial court announced his credit for time served. After filing an appeal, Kaye filed a pro se motion seeking additional jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court struck the motion for two reasons. First, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to consider the motion because it was filed after the notice of appeal.1 Second, the pro se motion was a nullity because it was filed while Kaye was represented by counsel.

On appeal, Kaye claims he should have been credited for time served in Hamilton County. Whether Kaye is entitled to that credit is not clear from the face of the record, and his failure to object to not receiving the proper jail credit renders this issue unpreserved for appellate review. *See Murray v. State,*36 So.3d 792, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

1

. Kaye could have, but did not file a motion during the pendency of the appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
#### Shernerd RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-6008.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 21, 2011.

Shernerd Richardson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Baker v. State,*878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

KAHN, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ, concur.