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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.1.3

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                    TO THE RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.

     1. The name of this Corporation is WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.

     2. The Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation were filed
with the Florida Department of State on October 28, 1991.

     3. Articles of Amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of the
Corporation were filed with the Florida Department of State on October 13, 1992
and October 17, 1994.

     4. The first sentence of ARTICLE THIRD of the Restated Articles of
Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended by deleting such sentence in
its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following:

               "The total number of shares, including those previously
               authorized, which the Company may have outstanding at any time is
               400,000,000 shares, all of which shall be Common Stock, having a
               par value of $1.00 per share."

     5. The foregoing amendment was adopted pursuant to Section 607.1003 of the
Florida Business Corporation Act, by the unanimous written consent of the Board
of Directors of the Corporation effective June 16, 1997, and by the Shareholders
of the Corporation at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders on October 1, 1997.

     6. The number of votes cast for the amendment by the Shareholders of the
Corporation was sufficient for approval of the amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. has caused these Articles of
Amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
to be executed in its name by its President on this 1st day of October, 1997.

                                           WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.


                                           By /s/ James Kufeldt
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           James Kufeldt
                                           President
[No. 32479-2-II.

Division Two.

November 22, 2005.]

#### Lauraine B. Devine, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Social and Health Services et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 02-2-00723-8, M. Karlynn Haberly, J., entered November 3, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Houghton and Hunt, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus AUDWIN L. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-97-331-3) Submitted: October 30, 2002 Decided: November 8, 2002 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Audwin L. Davis appeals the district court’s revocation of supervised release imposed pursuant to a conviction for possession of a firearm by a controlled substance abuser. Davis’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. On Davis’s behalf, counsel contends that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Davis to twelve months of incarceration for his violations of the terms of supervised release. Davis was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We have reviewed the claims and find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642- 43 (4th Cir. 1995). In addition, we have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) 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), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:   July 17, 2003                             Signed:   /s/ Donald M. Boone



Donald M. Boone, President and CEO









Date:   July 17, 2003                              Signed:   /s/ Michael C. Nasser



Michael C. Nasser, Corporate Secretary
EXHIBIT 11

                         SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Three months ended September 30,      Nine months ended September30,
                                            --------------------------------      ------------------------------
                                                2004                2003                2004                    2003
                                                ----                ----                ----                    ----
<S>                                       <C>                 <C>                 <C>                    <C>
       Basic earnings:

       Net income(loss)                   $       10,859      $      (345,792)    $       (247,467)      $     (1,170,438)
                                          ==============      ===============     ================       ================
       Basic income (loss) per share
                                          $         0.00      $         (0.01)    $          (0.01)      $          (0.04)
                                          ==============      ===============     ================       ================
       Shares:
       Weighted common shares
       outstanding                            30,509,700           30,429,491           30,509,700             26,491,762
                                          ==============      ===============     ================       ----------------

       Dilutive effect of stock
       options and warrants                    4,289,797              -                   -                      -
                                          --------------      ---------------     ----------------       ----------------
       Diluted common shares
       outstanding                            34,799,497           30,429,491           30,509,700             26,491,762
                                          ==============      ===============     ================       ----------------
       Basic and diluted income(loss)
       per share                          $         0.00      $        (0.01)     $          (0.01)      $          (0.04)
                                          ==============      ===============     ================       ================
</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3413 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 

relations treatment) to the products of Kazakhstan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 

Kazakhstan. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) Kazakhstan allows its citizens the right and 

6 opportunity to emigrate, free of any heavy tax on 

7 emigration or on the visas or other documents re8 quired for emigration and free of any tax, levy, fine, 

9 fee, or other charge on any citizens as a consequence 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3413 IS

1 of the desire of those citizens to emigrate to the 

2 country of their choice. 

3 (2) Kazakhstan has been found to be in full 

4 compliance with the freedom of emigration require5 ments under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

6 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) since 1994. 

7 (3) Kazakhstan has received normal trade rela8 tions treatment since concluding a bilateral trade 

9 agreement with the United States that entered into 

10 force in 1992. 

11 (4) On July 27, 2015, the Ministerial Con12 ference of the World Trade Organization invited 

13 Kazakhstan to accede to the World Trade Organiza14 tion. 

15 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF 

16 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO THE PRODUCTS 

17 OF KAZAKHSTAN. 

18 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN19 SION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith20 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 

21 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may— 

22 (1) determine that such title should no longer 

23 apply to Kazakhstan; and 

24 (2) after making a determination under para25 graph (1) with respect to Kazakhstan, proclaim the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3413 IS

1 extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal 

2 trade relations treatment) to the products of 

3 Kazakhstan. 

4 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF TITLE

5 IV.—On and after the date on which the President ex6 tends nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of 

7 Kazakhstan pursuant to subsection (a), title IV of the 

8 Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) shall cease 

9 to apply to Kazakhstan. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Santiago Rivera, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[856 NYS2d 893]

While an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, petitioner was placed in involuntary protective custody following a hearing at which it was determined that a threat to his life had been made by another inmate. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination.

The Attorney General has informed this Court that petitioner has been transferred to another correctional facility, where he resides in the general population. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Allah v Goord,*257 AD2d 932, 932 [1999]; *Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe,*233 AD2d 647, 647 [1996]; *Matter of Graham v Scully,*113 AD2d 990, 991 [1985]). To the extent that petitioner alleges that his inmate status report contains inaccurate information regarding the involuntary protective custody determination, that claim is not the proper subject of this proceeding. Petitioner’s challenge to the accuracy of his institutional records should be made pursuant to the procedures set forth in 7 NYCRR part 5 *(see Matter of Cullum v Goord,*45 AD3d 1212, 1212 [2007]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*28 AD3d 848, 849 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 712 [2006]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 1, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40829 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER W. LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-02-CR-307-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Christopher W. Lawrence has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lawrence has filed a response to the motion. Our review of the brief filed by counsel, Lawrence’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. The motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.No. 03-40829 -2- A number of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims have been raised in the brief and in the response. Lawrence may raise those claims in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Brewster , 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir. 1998). APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION GRANTED.
NO. SCWC-29551

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DONALD T. OKIMOTO and KUMIKO OKIMOTO,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants

vs.

KURT I. UYEHARA, D.D.S., Respondent/Defendant-Appellee

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CIV. NO. 06-1-0153)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama,

Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on

August 22, 2011 by Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants Donald T.

Okimoto and Kumiko Okimoto is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 26, 2011.

Carl H. Osaki; and Wayne M. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

Sakai, Michiro Iwanaga and 

Daniel M. Chen (Sakai Iwanaga /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Sutton Law Group AAL ALC) 

for petitioners/ /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

plaintiffs-appellants,

on the application. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

Sidney K. Ayabe, Diane W. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Wong, and Michael J. Van

Dyke (Ayabe Chong Nishimoto 

Sia & Nakamura) for 

respondent/defendant-appellee, 

on the opposition.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-29551

26-SEP-2011

09:52 AM
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 14 - 00115 - CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT

V. CODY MICHAEL PIRTLE, APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 1

Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 136550, Honorable Richard Dambold, Presiding



### June 6 , 2014 ON MOTION TO DISMISS Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Pending before the Court is the State’s motion to dismiss its appeal pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure . T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a). The State has complied with the requirements of Rule 42.2(a) and, as no decision of this C ourt has b een delivered, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(f). James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emmett Tillman WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50161

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2012.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Emmett Tillman Woods, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 2007, Emmett Tillman Woods, federal prisoner #83343-180, pleaded guilty to *287conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Woods was sentenced to 92 months of imprisonment. Woods moves this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). By doing so, he challenges the district court’s IFP determination. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). This court’s inquiry into whether an appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Contrary to Woods’s assertion, the district court correctly concluded that Woods was not entitled to relief based on Amendment 750 because, even without consideration of the crack cocaine in this case, Woods was responsible for 662 grams of powder cocaine, which drug quantity alone results in the same base offense level, 26, and the same guidelines range of 92 to 115 months of imprisonment. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(7). Because retroactive Amendment 750 did not result in a lower sentencing guidelines range in Woods’s ease, the policy statements precluded the district court from modifying his sentence. *See United States v. Doublin,*572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.2009). As such, Woods’s argument that the district court erred when it denied relief without considering the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is unavailing. *See*§ 3582(c)(2).

Woods has failed to demonstrate a non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th CiR. R. 42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *287published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 367 THE CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRIANNE NICOLE RANA ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 4 , 20 2 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court November 27 2020

11/27/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0367
|    |                                                                                                                 |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Xerox Corporation; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                                                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                         |  |
| /S/  WILLIAM F. OSBOURN JR.                                                                                                   |   |
|           William F. Osbourn Jr.      Principal Financial Officer |   |
###                                          Thrivent Mutual Funds

                                            Supplement to Prospectuses dated July 17, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements found in the Company's Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended March 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,393,237
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    275,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,748,902
<PP&E>                                       1,302,651
<DEPRECIATION>                                 851,573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,748,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,181,694
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       220,408
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,748,027
<SALES>                                        227,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               227,034
<CGS>                                          259,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  259,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,148,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,174,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,174,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,174,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>