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

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                  AMENDMENT TO THE COMPANY'S THIRD AMENDED AND
                          RESTATED CODE OF REGULATIONS

         The Company's Third Amended and Restated Code of Regulations shall be
amended to add the following provision:

                                  "ARTICLE XIII

                  Unless approved by the holders of a majority of the shares
present and entitled to vote at a duly convened meeting of shareholders, the
Corporation shall not:

                  (i) grant any stock option, including stock appreciation
right, with an exercise price that is less than 100% of the fair market value of
the underlying stock on the date of grant;

                  (ii) reduce the exercise price of any stock option, including
stock appreciation right, outstanding or to be granted in the future; cancel and
re-grant options at a lower exercise price (including entering into any "6 month
and 1 day" cancellation and re-grant program), whether or not the canceled
options are put back into the available pool for grant; replace out-of-the-money
options with restricted stock in an exchange, buy-back or other program; or
replace any options with new options having a lower exercise price or
accelerated vesting schedule in an exchange, buy-back or other program;

                  (iii) sell or issue any security of the Corporation
convertible, exercisable or exchangeable into common shares of the Corporation,
having a conversion, exercise or exchange price per share which is subject to
downward adjustment based on the market price of the common shares at the time
of conversion, exercise or exchange of such security into common shares (except
for appropriate adjustments made to give effect to any stock splits or stock
dividends); or

                  (iv) enter into (a) any equity line or similar agreement or
arrangement; or (b) any agreement to sell common shares of the Corporation (or
any security convertible, exercisable or exchangeable into common shares
("Common Share Equivalent")) at a per share price (or, with respect to a Common
Share Equivalent, at a conversion, exercise or exchange price, as the case may
be ("Equivalent Price")) that is fixed after the execution date of the
agreement, whether or not based on any predetermined price-setting formula or
calculation method. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, a price protection
clause shall be permitted in an agreement for sale of common shares or Common
Share Equivalent, if such clause provides for an adjustment to the price per
share or, with respect to a Common Share Equivalent, to the Equivalent Price
(provided that such price or Equivalent Price is fixed on or before the
execution date of the agreement) (the "Fixed Price") in the event that the
Corporation, during the period beginning on the date of the agreement and ending
no later than 90 days after the closing date of the transaction, sells common
shares or Common Share Equivalent to another investor at a price or Equivalent
Price, as the case may be, below the Fixed Price."


                                       1
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to August 30, 2022 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :

A

- 22

- 0 51 In re Interest of Anita L.

A

- 22

- 099 State v. Caillau

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.
Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.
Exhibit 35.1



AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB



I, Paul C. Honda, do
hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation
(the "Company"), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the "Servicer" and
"Sponsor") under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of April 24, 2013 among the Servicer
and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2013-2 Owner Trust, as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2015, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge and information, based upon such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this 8thday of June, 2015.



| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
'

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. §1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Rex T. Clevenger, Chief Financial 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:



|/s/REX T. CLEVENGERRex T. Clevenger
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2007 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2186. KENNETH CLARK v. THE CORPORATION OF WILCOX

COUNTY et al.

Kenneth Clark appealed directly to this Court from an order of the superior

court denying the filing of his civil complaint. Because Clark is incarcerated, his

appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1

et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8, an appeal of a civil action filed by a prisoner “shall

be as provided in Code Section 5-6-35.” And under OCGA § 5-6-35, the party

wishing to appeal must file an application for discretionary appeal to the appropriate

appellate court. Because a prisoner has no right of direct appeal in civil cases, we

lack jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal from the superior court’s order. See

Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). This appeal is therefore

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/06/2015

August 06, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      32,541,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,954,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                   325,625
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,295,729
<PP&E>                                       3,405,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                 857,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,736,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,375,383
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,692,656
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,331,383)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,736,656
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,684,598
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,199,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,352,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                72,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,515,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (148,493)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,367,207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,367,207)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.371)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.358)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Donald P. Gill, hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Ipswich
Bancorp;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

(4) The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
we have:

      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
      including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
      within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
      quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
      controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our
      conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
      procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report
      based on such evaluation; and

      c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business
      issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
      the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
      affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
      issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons fulfilling the
equivalent functions):

      a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability
      to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
      internal controls over financial reporting.


/s/ Donald P. Gill
------------------------
Donald P. Gill
Chief Executive Officer

August 16, 2004
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 20, 2014

No. 04-14-00054-CR

Marcus Anthony ROBINSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR0413

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The court reporter has filed a third notification of late reporter’s record, requesting an 

extension to June 7, 2014. We GRANT the court reporter’s request and ORDER her to file the 

reporter’s record on or before June 9, 2014. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE 

GRANTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00572

- CR

Brian Sellers v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 17FC

- 0421

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 9, 2019
EXHIBIT 12.1



|                                                    |  | Three Months Ended September 30, |       |   | Nine Months Ended September 30, |  
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | ----- | - | ------------------------------- | -
|                                                    |  | 2003                             |       |   | 2002                            |  
|DETERMINATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |  |                                  |       |   |                                 |  
|Income before provision for income taxes            |  | $                                | 1,735 |   |                                 | $
|Fixed charges                                       |  |                                  |       |   |                                 |  
|Amortization of deferred financing costs            |  |                                  | 270   |   |                                 |  
|Interest expense                                    |  |                                  | 4,354 |   |                                 |  
|                                                    |  |                                  |       |   |                                 |  
|Earnings before fixed charges                       |  |                                  | 6,359 |   |                                 |  
|Fixed charges                                       |  |                                  |       |   |                                 |  
|Amortization of deferred financing costs            |  |                                  | 270   |   |                                 |  
|Interest expense                                    |  |                                  | 4,354 |   |                                 |  
|                                                    |  |                                  |       |   |                                 |  
|Total fixed charges                                 |  | $                                | 4,624 |   |                                 | $
|                                                    |  |                                  |       |   |                                 |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                  |  |                                  | 1.38  | X |                                 |
#### Gould *v.*Spicer and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.*

August 3, 1882.)

Patehts for Inyehtioxs—Reissue—Void for Yariaece.

In Equity;

*Thomas W. Clarice,*for complainant.

*Benjamin F. Thurston,*for defendants.

Before Gray and Colt, JJ.

Grax, Justice.

In the original patent the only invention claimed or described, or appearing upon its face to have been intended to be claimed or described, is an arrangement of grate-bars, with projections on the under side of each end, in combination with two rotary cams, coming in contact with such projections. The reissue, so far as it relates to the seven new claims introduced therein, is void, because of its variance from the original patent; and it is unnecessary to consider the other grave objections to the validity of the reissue, founded on the lapse of time before it was applied for. But the validity of the claim made in the original patent, and distinctly repeated ip the reissue, is not affected.

The result is that the first demurrer, which goes to the whole bill, must be overruled, and the second demurrer, filed in accordance with the thirty-second rule in equity, and limited to that part of the bill which sets forth the invalid claims, must be sustained, and the case stand for replication and proofs upon the first claim.
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





In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of South Beach Spirits, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended
February 28, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Daniel Sobolewski, Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|By: | /s/ Daniel Sobolewski                                 | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Daniel Sobolewsk                                      | 
|    | Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer | 
|    | (Principal Executive Officer)                         | 
|    | January 10, 2019                                      | 





A signed original of this certification
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELVIN McCABE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

THE IDAHO STATE BOARD OF 

CORRECTION; IDAHO 

CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRY 

VOCATIONAL WORK PROJECTS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35462 

D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00458-DCN 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Idaho state prisoner Melvin McCabe appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). We have jurisdiction 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

DEC 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35462 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 

1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed McCabe’s action after finding that McCabe’s 

allegations regarding defendants’ discriminatory motive were insufficient to state a 

plausible claim. However, McCabe alleged that defendants excluded him from 

certain higher paying work placements on the basis of his bottom bunk assignment 

and that, on information and belief, defendants have developed a discriminatory 

“placement matrix” that favors non-disabled inmates. The generalized statements 

regarding placement decisions, contained in the grievance form attached to the first 

amended complaint, do not render implausible McCabe’s claims concerning his 

specific placement requests. Liberally construed, McCabe’s allegations “are 

sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d 

at 1116; O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(setting forth elements of claims under Title II of the ADA and the RA).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

VACATED and REMANDED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMES R. FORRESTER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1276

[ November 24, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Krista Marx , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CF010881A

.

James R. Forrester, Sneads, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, K LIN GENSMITH and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.