alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 3.1

FILED
THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         NUTRICEUTICALS.COM CORPORATION

JAN 11 2000
NO. C 12813-95
/s/ DEAN HELLER
-------------------------------
DEAN HELLER, SECRETARY OF STATE

Pursuant to the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes, the undersigned
corporation does hereby adopt these Articles of Amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation and the undersigned officers do hereby certify individually and on
behalf of the undersigned corporation as follows:

     1.        The name of the corporation is Nutriceuticals.com Corporation
          (the "Company"). The Articles of Incorporation were filed by the
          Department of the State of Nevada and became effective on October 18,
          1999.

     2.        A new Article One in the Articles of Incorporation of this
          Corporation shall be as follows:

                                  ARTICLE ONE

               The name of the corporation is DrugMax.com, Inc.

     3.        This amendment was recommended by the Board of Directors to the
          Corporation's shareholders on December 6, 1999.

     4.        On January 11, 2000, the holders of a majority of the outstanding
          shares of Common Stock of the Corporation, the only class of
          securities outstanding, adopted this amendment to the Corporation's
          Articles of Incorporation as a special duly called and convened
          meeting of such shareholders. The number of votes --- for the
          amendment by the shareholders was --- for approval.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused these Articles of Amendment to
the Articles of Incorporation to be executed this 11th day of January, 2000.


                              NUTRICEUTICALS.COM CORPORATION

                              By: /s/ STEPHEN M. WATTERS
                                 -----------------------
                                 Stephen M. Watters, President

                              By: /s/ WILLIAM L. LAGAMBA
                                  ----------------------
                                  William L. LaGamba, Secretary

<PAGE>

                                 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH


         On this 11th day of January, 2000 before me personally appeared Stephen
Watters, who acknowledged to me that he is the President and William LaGamba ,
who acknowledged to me that he is the Secretary of Nutriceuticals.com
Corporation (the "Corporation"), a Florida corporation, and that they have
executed the foregoing Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of
the Corporation.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal on this 11th
day of January, 2000.



[SEAL]                        /s/ AMY [ILLEGIBLE]
                              -----------------------
                              Amy [ILLEGIBLE], Notary Public
No. 10,109.

#### Wright et al. *v.*Wilson.

*Costs.*— Short-Sand *Reporter.*— Where the evidence in a case has been taken by a short-hand reporter, and the original long-hand manuscript of the same has been filed in the clerk’s office, and upon appeal incorporated in a bill of exceptions and certified to the Supreme Court, the appellant, upon reversal of the cause, is entitled to recover from his adversary as fees the cost of such manuscript.

From the Cass Circuit Court.

*113Filed Oct. 18, 1884.

*D. D. Dykeman, M. Winfield*and *Q. A. Myers,*for appellants.

*R. Magee*and *D. B. McConnell,*for appellee.

Best, C.

Motion to tax costs.

The testimony in this case *(Wright*v. *Wilson,*95 Ind. 408) was taken by a short-hand reporter, and the appellee moves the court to tax the appellant with the cost of the same..

The statute authorizes such reporter to collect fees for making transcripts of his short-hand notes of the testimony, to be paid by the party requiring the transcript. Section 1409, R. S. 1881.

.The statute also provides that whenever testimony is taken by such reporter, the original long-hand manuscript of the same may be filed with the clerk by the party entitled to its use, and on an appeal to this court, it shall be the duty of the clerk, if required, to certify the original manuscript of such evidence, when incorporated in a bill of exceptions, instead of a transcript thereof to this court, and in such case the clerk shall not be entitled to any fees'' for such portion of the transcript.

These sections of the statute authorize the use of a transcript made by the reporter instead of a transcript of such portion of the record by the clerk, and as the party who procures the transcript is required to pay the fees, no reason occurs to us why the appellant, when the judgment is reversed, shall not recover from his adversary these fees in the same manner he is entitled to recover from him other fees in the cause. These fees are necessarily expended when such transcript is procured, and as they are a mere substitute for such fees as the clerk would' otherwise charge, we think they should be taxed as though they were made by him. The motion should be overruled.

Per Curiam. — Motion overruled.
585 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ODELL WHEELER.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT, RESPONDENT, v. LAWRENCE MERLINO, APPELLANT. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT, RESPONDENT, v. PHILIP LEONETTI, APPELLANT.

Argued December 1, 1987

Decided January 20, 1988.

*Peter L. Bruso*argued the cause for appellant, Philip Leonetti *(Jacobs, Todd & Bruso,*attorneys; *Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr.,*of counsel; *Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr.,*and *Rosemary A. Cain,*on the briefs).

*Michael L. Testa*argued the cause for appellant, Lawrence Merlino *(Basile, Testa & Testa,*attorneys).

*Gary A. Ehrlich,*Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent *(¡V. Cary Edwards,*Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; *Gary A. Ehrlich*and *Anthony J. Parrillo,*Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

*Dennis Daly,*Senior Assistant Counsel, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Casino Control Commission *(Robert J. Genatt,*General Counsel, attorney; *Dennis Daly*and *Carole R. Jacobson,*Assistant Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, 216 *N.J.Super.*579.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.

*For reversal*— None.
# **Exhibit 31.1**

#  

**Certification**

 

I, JeffPotter, certify that:

 

1.                                       I havereviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A to the quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Frontier Airlines, Inc.; and

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.

 

Date        November 10, 2005

 

 
|   | By:    |   /s/  Jeff S. Potter                    |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   Jeff  S. Potter                        |
|   |   |   President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3555

___________

Grady Newingham, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

David Westbrook, Sgt., Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Turoty Hayes, * [UNPUBLISHED]

CO-I, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *

Greg Harmon, Warden, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Kay Wade, *

Corporal, Maximum Security Unit, *

ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2005

Filed: August 9, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-

Arkansas inmate Grady Newingham appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various prison employees for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. We affirm, but modify the dismissal to be without prejudice

and clarify that the dismissal does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Dismissal is merited because Newingham failed to show he exhausted his

administrative remedies as to his claim that Defendant Arkansas Department of

Correction Director Larry Norris failed to protect him from an assault. See

Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141, 1143 (8th Cir. 2003). Newingham’s

argument on appeal that administrative remedies were unavailable to him because

they did not provide for monetary relief is without merit. See Booth v. Churner, 582

U.S. 731, 734 (2001).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit 13.2

Certification by the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of DBV Technologies S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Schilansky, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 28, 2016
|                    
|/s/ David Schilansky
|Name:                |  | David Schilansky                                     
|Title:               |  | Chief Operating Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         752,101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  581,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,333,137
<PP&E>                                      15,889,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                 467,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,755,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,582
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,587,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,755,241
<SALES>                                        476,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               476,782
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                404,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            404,974
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   404,974
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-1782

___________ Lincoln Benefit Life Company, Inc., * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. eWealth USA, Inc.; eWealth America, * Inc.; Argent Capital Corporation; * [UNPUBLISHED] Argent Financial Services, Inc., * * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: October 11, 2002 Filed: October 18, 2002

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Following a bench trial, the District Court 1 found that Appellants (AFS/eWealth) breached a February 2000 credit agreement with Lincoln Benefit Life Company (LBL). AFS/eWealth had argued that its president, Sam Watson, did not have the authority to enter into the agreement. The District Court also found in LBL's-2- favor with respect to AFS/eWealth's counterclaim that the parties formed a credit agreement in 1999 that LBL breached. AFS/eWealth now challenges the District Court's findings of fact with respect to the February 2000 contract and the alleged 1999 agreement. AFS/eWealth also argues that the District Court should have taken LBL's admissions as conclusive fact that a 1999 agreement existed and that the District Court improperly allocated the burden of proof to AFS/eWealth on the issue of Watson's lack of authority. We review a district court's findings of fact, such as those concerning the existence of a contract, for clear error, see Kansas City Power and Light Co. v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co. , 707 F.2d 1002, 1003 (8th Cir. 1983), and we review its findings of law de novo, see Appley Bros. v. United States , 164 F.3d 1164, 1170 (8th Cir. 1999). Having done so, we agree with the District Court, for the reasons it provided, that AFS/eWealth breached the February 2000 contract and that the parties did not enter into another contract in 1999 or at any other time. As for the procedural disputes, we also agree with the District Court. First, the District Court did not err in construing LBL's admissions. Second, although AFS/eWealth argues that Watson lacked authority to enter into the February 2000 agreement, we agree with the District Court that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e), AFS/eWealth waived this issue by not raising it in the pretrial order. Relatedly, because AFS/eWealth waived its argument on the lack-of-authority issue, any dispute over the burden of proof concerning that issue is moot. None of the District Court's findings of fact is clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears. We therefore affirm the judgment in favor of LBL on the basis of the District Court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-3- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Myrtle SINGEN et al., Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS DISTRICT LODGE 837, Ap-pellee.

No. 79-1766.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 13, 1980.

Decided April 3, 1980.

Charles E. Foehner, III, St. Louis, Mo., argued, Harry J. Nichols, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellants.

Jerome A. Diekemper, Diekemper, Ham-mon & Shinners, St. Louis, Mo., for appel-lee.

*718Before BRIGHT, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal an order of the district court 475 F.Supp. 663, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the action was barred by the Missouri statute of limitations, Mo.Rev. Stat. § 516.120 (1969).

On November 12, 1971, plaintiffs filed suit in Missouri state court alleging that defendant refused to process a grievance concerning termination of certain contractual rights resulting in plaintiffs’ layoff and loss of seniority rights on August 1, 1969. December 17,1971, defendant moved to dismiss the suit because defendant, as an unincorporated labor organization, is not an entity capable of being sued under Missouri law. No further action took place until 1976 when plaintiffs requested and were granted removal of the case from the state court’s dismissal docket. July 10, 1978, the original suit was dismissed by the state court.

February 20, 1979, plaintiffs filed the present action in federal court alleging essentially the same charges as raised in the state proceedings. The district court granted défendant’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs’ claim was untimely under the appropriate state statute of limitations, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.120 (1969). However, the district court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to allege the applicability of the Missouri savings statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.230 (1969). The district court again granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that under the facts of the case the savings statute was not applicable and the suit was barred.

We have carefully reviewed the record, including the district court’s memorandum, the briefs and the arguments of the parties to this action. We find no merit to plaintiffs’ arguments, and accordingly affirm the order of the district court pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court on the basis of the district court’s memorandum opinion.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack J. Kogut, Chief
Financial Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:


     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Northfield Laboratories Inc.


Date: April 14, 2003


/s/ Jack J. Kogut
----------------------------
Jack J. Kogut
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,585,508
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         121,469
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             8,600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 20,211,918
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,248,289
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,223,000
<LOANS>                                     93,502,382
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,126,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             136,589,899
<DEPOSITS>                                 120,721,307
<SHORT-TERM>                                   262,104
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            726,734
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,168,127
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,740,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             136,589,899
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,624,805
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              724,373
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               326,668
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,675,846
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,398,496
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,407,989
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,267,857
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  136,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (600)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,237,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,475,772
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,475,772
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   978,148
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
585 A.2d 395

#### DENNIS N. GIORDANO v. ANDOVER REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE ex rel. William S. CARTER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2574.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 14, 2011.

In re Carter, William S.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated November 12, 2010; Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. B, No. 145,006; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,450-KH.

Denied.