alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
3.3




AMENDMENT
NO. 1





TO
THE





OPERATING
AGREEMENT





OF





MIDAMERICAN
FUNDING, LLC








FIRST AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to the
OPERATING AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) of MIDAMERICAN FUNDING, LLC, an Iowa limited
liability company (“Company”), dated as of February 9, 2010, by MidAmerican
Energy Holdings Company, an Iowa corporation, the sole “Member.





W I T N E S S E T H





WHEREAS, the Member desires to increase
the number of members of the Board of Managers set forth in Section 3.2(b) of
the Agreement from three (3) to four (4); and





WHEREAS,
Section 8.5 of the Agreement requires an amendment to the Agreement to be in
writing and signed by the Member.





NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is
amended as follows:





Section
1.                      The
first sentence of Section 3.2(b) is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the
following:





“There shall be four (4) Managers on
the Board of Managers.”





Section
2.                      Except
as amended hereby, the provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this First Amendment to the Operating Agreement of MidAmerican Funding,
LLC as of the day and date first set forth above.





MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS
COMPANY


Its sole Member








By:           /s/ Douglas L. Anderson


Douglas L. Anderson


Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001088201
<NAME>                        EASTERN MANAGEMENT CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                    US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                   APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                  1
<CASH>                           0
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                     0
<INVENTORY>                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 0
<PP&E>                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            6,500
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                         50
<OTHER-SE>                       8,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     (6,500)
<SALES>                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 0
<CGS>                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 6,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 6,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              0
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     (6,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (0.01)


</TABLE>
A. BROWN REME CO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA NEELKANTH HOSPITALITY, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, VS. MOMENI CONSTRUCTION, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Respondent. No. 83989



# FiL MAY 2 b 2022
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This court previously ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The parties have now filed a stipulation to disrniss this appeal. Cause appearing, this appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b).

It is so ORDERED.

cc: Hon. Christy L. Craig, District Judge Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge The Faux Law Group Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (01 I947A 

# -2.Z.-)685
Exhibit 13.1



Section 906 Certificate
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code), I, Justin Gover, Chief Executive Officer of GW Pharmaceuticals plc, a public limited
company incorporated under English law (the “company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended September 30, 2014 (the “Form 20-F”) of the company
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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: December 4, 2014



| | /s/ Justin Gover       
| | -----------------------
| | Justin Gover           
| | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5





<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          127,669
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   184,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     98,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                447,350
<PP&E>                                          121,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  848,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           620,919
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        21,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    848,302
<SALES>                                         348,944
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,026,027
<CGS>                                           236,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   236,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                689,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 99,716
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,716
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,716
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0



</TABLE>
#### Andrew Marvel et al., Appellants, v Stony Brook Internists, P. C., et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 477]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated November 1, 1996, which denied their motion to vacate two judgments of the same court, entered August 28, 1995, and October 10, 1995, respectively, entered upon an order of the same court, dated May 11, 1995, dismissing the complaint as against all defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In order for the plaintiffs to establish their entitlement to vacatur of the judgments entered upon their failure to oppose the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for, *inter alia,*failure to comply with discovery demands, the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the defaults *(see, Putney v Pearlman,*203 AD2d 333). The plaintiffs failed to satisfy this standard. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PVF Capital Corp.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: September 15, 2008
    /s/ John R. MaleJohn R. MaleChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit Number 32.2



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 Great Western Bancorporation, Inc. (Great Western) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James R. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of Great Western, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 Great Western.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James R. Clark     
|James R. Clark,        
|Chief Financial Officer
#### ZHEN ZHOU YUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71792.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 9, 2011.

Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, Law Office of Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Zhen Zhou Yun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yun’s second motion to reopen as untimely, because she filed it over four years after the BIA issued its final administrative order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Yun failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *see also Lin v. Holder,*588 F.3d 981, 988-89 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding record did not establish change in family planning laws or enforcement of such laws that would establish changed country conditions excusing untimely motion to reopen).

Contrary to Yun’s contention, the BIA adequately considered the evidence presented with the motion to reopen. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Michael ALEXANDER, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7035.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

*970Shelly D. Weger, David J. Barrans, Rachael T. Shenkman, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Christopher R. Liro, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for Claimant-Appellant.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

RADER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Michael Alexander move to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Vetei'ans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motions are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quick-Med
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, J. Ladd Greeno, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive
officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 (a)
              The
      Report 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 Dated:  May
15,
2008                                                                                 /s/  J. Ladd
Greeno      _________________________
 J.
Ladd Greeno
 Chief Executive
Officer (and Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2



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 Form 10-Q for NetScreen
Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Remo E. Canessa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the quarter covered by the
Report.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    REMO E.
CANESSARemo E. Canessa Chief Financial Officer NetScreen Technologies, Inc.Date:

February 17, 2004




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In r e: Edward B. Lyon, Jr.

No. 06

- 12

- 00110

- CV Appeal from the 5th District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10C

1523

- 005 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chi ef Justice Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the app ellant, Edward B. Lyon, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 20, 201 3 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-1007

_____________________________

KRYSTAL HINSON,

Appellant,

v.

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 

ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Public Employee Relations Commission.

Donna Poole, Chair.

January 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ.,

concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Donald E. Pinaud, Jr. of All Florida Justice, LLC a/k/a Law Office 

of Don Pinaud, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Tracy Cooper George, Chief Appellate Counsel, and Andrew T. 

Sheeran, General Counsel, Agency for Health Care 

Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.3**

| (1)    | the                  Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period                  ended                  December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements                  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934                  (15                  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| (2)    | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                  Company.                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

| Dated:  June 20,                  2007 | /s/                  Gregory E. Abel       |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                  | Gregory                  E. Abel           |   |
|                                                  | President                                  |   |
|                                                  | (chief                  executive officer) |   |

----

----