alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 3.1.2


<PAGE>



                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                 B2 HEALTH, INC.
                        (a Delaware Domestic Corporation)


     The corporation,  organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of B2 Health,  Inc.  held on
July 7th, 2010 it was RESOLVED,  that the Certificate of  Incorporation  of this
corporation be amended by changing the Article thereof  entitled "Name" so that,
as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:

                                      NAME

          The name of the Corporation is Creative Learning Corporation.


SECOND:  That  thereafter,  pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors,  a
special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held
upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by
statute were voted in favour of the amendment.

THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  said  corporation has caused this certificate to be signed
this 7th day of July, 2010.

                                          B2 HEALTH, INC.



                                          By:/s/ Brian Pappas
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Brian Pappas
                                             Title: President





                                                               State of Delaware
                                                              Secretary of State
                                                        Division of Corporations
                                                  Delivered 11:30 a.m. 7/13/2010
                                                        FILED 11:30 AM 7/13/2010
                                                    SRV 100737003 - 4121767 FILE
<PAGE>
EX-35.14
(logo) MIDLANDLOANSERVICES



March 1, 2008

Ms. Barbara L. Marik
First Vice President
LaSalle Bank N.A.
135 S. LaSalle St
Suite 1625
Chicago, IL 60603

Deutche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series COMM 2006-C8
Pooling and Servicing Agreement


OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

Pursuant to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
(the "Agreement"), it is hereby certified to the Depositor thereunder that on
behalf of Midland Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"), (i) a review of the
Servicer's activities during the reporting period and of its performance under
the Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's supervision; (ii)
to the best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review, the
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all
material respects throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a
failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, each such
failure known to the undersigned officer and the nature and status thereof are
set forth below; and (iii) the Servicer has not received any notice regarding
qualification, or challenging the status, of any REMIC formed pursuant to the
Agreement from the IRS or any other governmental agency or body.

Nature and Status of Failures: None.

MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, INC.



/s/ Steven W. Smith
Steven W. Smith
President and Chief Operating Officer



A Member of the PNC Financial Services Group
P.O. Box 419127  Kansas City Missouri 64141-6127
www.midlandls.com  913 253 9000 T  913 253 9001 F
#### William K. HALVORSEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7449.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2011.

David Bernard Hargett, Hargett Law, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William K. Halvorsen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a *727prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Halvorsen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel GONZALEZ-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10178.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*638Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

Claire Kiehl Lefkowitz, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Taylor Shannon, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Gonzalez-Chavez appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to an illegal reentry offense, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1).

Appellant’s assertion that his state conviction does not constitute a “crime of violence” for sentencing purposes is foreclosed by *United States v. Asberry,*394 F.3d 712, 718 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that a conviction under Oregon Revised Statute section 163.355 is a “crime of violence”).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment is granted because this appeal is controlled by precedent. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Maria Lisbeth NAVARRO-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73138.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Maria Lisbeth Navarro-Vargas, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Edward C. Durant, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald *8E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Lisbeth Navarro-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Navarro-Vargas’ motion to reopen as time- and number-barred where the successive motion was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s July 27, 2004, order dismissing her underlying appeal, and Navarro-Vargas failed to demonstrate that she qualified for an exception to the time and number limits, or for equitable tolling. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-32 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
**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 Quarterly Report of NovaStar Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory S. Metz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Gregory S. Metz     |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Gregory S. Metz         |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|                    |   |   |
| November 7, 2005        |   |   |

 

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston, Ch afin and Senior Judge Haley

REPUBLIC SERVICES OF VIRGINIA, LLC AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0696-16-4 PER CURIAM AUGUST 9, 2016 GEORGE P. OPOKU

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKER S’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Stephanie S. Ryan; Ryan Law, PLLC, on brief), for appellants. (W. David Falcon, Jr.; Michael Herdman; Chasen & Boscolo, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Republic Services of Virginia, LLC (“empl oyer”) appeals from an April 5, 2016 opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Commissi on. The Commission affirmed a deputy commissioner’s opinion finding that George P. Opoku (“claima nt”) sustained a compensable injury by accident and that his claim was not barred by willful misconduct. On appeal, employer contends the Commission erred by (1) concluding employer failed to prove claimant willfully breached a safety rule, (2) affirming the deputy commissioner’s “creation of an exception to the safety rule,” (3) affirming the deputy commission er’s discovery rulings, and (4) finding claimant proved a compensable injury by accident. Upon reviewing the record and briefs, we conc lude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Commission’s decision. Ru le 5A:27. We affirm for the reasons stated by the Commission in its final opinion. See Opoku v. Republic Servs. of Va.,

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - LLC, JCN VA00001057847 (Apr. 5, 2016). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions ar e adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decision al process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997 
<CASH>                                             387,810
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,997,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                       201,205
<INVENTORY>                                        571,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,493,760
<PP&E>                                           5,171,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,197,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,548,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,812,909
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            21,904
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,007,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,548,744
<SALES>                                          5,908,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,906,659
<CGS>                                            2,378,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,378,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,854,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 236,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    500,633
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200,253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                300,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       300,380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .09
        


</TABLE>
#### HAKO-MED USA, INC., Hako-Med GMBH and Achim Hansjurgens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and E-Mos Civil Unlimited Corporation Fed Rep Germany, Plaintiff, v. AXIOM WORLDWIDE, INC., James Gibson, Jr., and Nicholas Exarhos, Defendants.

No. 2010-1421.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 11, 2011.

Craig Marc Rappel, Rappel Health Law Group, PL, of Vero Beach, FL, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.

*327Before BRYSON, CLEVENGER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 32.2








Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Frank A. D'Amelio, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pfizer Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pfizer Inc.








/s/ FRANK A. D'AMELIOFrank A. D'AmelioExecutive Vice President, Business Operations and Chief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2013








This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2617 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2617

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit rollovers into 
individual retirement accounts of separation pay from the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1993

Mr. Bunning (for himself, Mr. Stump, and Mr. Montgomery) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit rollovers into 
individual retirement accounts of separation pay from the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Separation Retirement 
Benefits Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. IRA ROLLOVERS OF MILITARY SEPARATION PAY.

    (a) In General.--Section 402(a)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to special rollover rules) is amended by adding at the 
end thereof the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(J) Military separation pay.--If--
                            ``(i) an individual receives separation pay 
                        under section 1174 or 1174a of title 10, United 
                        States Code, and
                            ``(ii) such individual transfers any 
                        portion of such pay within 60 days after the 
                        receipt of such pay to an eligible retirement 
                        plan described in subclause (I) or (II) of 
                        paragraph (5)(E)(iv),
                then the portion of the pay so transferred shall be 
                treated as a transfer from a qualified trust which 
                meets the requirements of paragraph (5) and which is a 
                transfer of a distribution of amounts other than 
                employee contributions.''
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
        apply to pay received after December 5, 1991.
            (2) Transition rule.--In the case of any payment received 
        after December 5, 1991, and before the date of the enactment of 
        this Act, the 60-day transfer requirement of section 
        402(a)(6)(J)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added 
        by subsection (a)) shall be treated as met if the taxpayer 
        transfers the payment to an eligible retirement plan within 1 
        year after such date of enactment.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 10.10.2

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
              INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE LEASE (SINGLE-TENANT FACILITY)

       This First Amendment to Industrial Real Estate Lease (Single-Tenant
Facility) ("Amendment"), dated March 3, 1999, for reference purposes only, is
entered into by and between Carl D. Panattoni and John E. Van Valkenburgh
(collectively "Landlord") and West Marine Products, Inc., ("Tenant"), and amends
that certain Industrial Real Estate Lease (Single-Tenant Facility) and the
Addendum and Riders thereto (collectively the "Lease") by and between Landlord
and Tenant. All terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain the same except
as herein provided.

      To the extent of any inconsistencies or contradictions between the terms
and conditions of the Lease and this First Amendment, the terms and conditions
contained herein shall supersede and take precedence over those contained in the
Lease.

      The parties above acknowledge and hereby agree that the Lease, as
referenced above, is hereby amended as follows:

        1. Section 1.05. Lease Term: The term of this lease commences
           February 4, 1996 and expires February 3, 2011.

      The parties have executed this First Amendment as of the dates signed
below:

LANDLORD:                                                   TENANT:
                                                   [WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC.]

By:     /s/ Carl D. Panattoni                      By:   /s/ Frank G. Fawcett
        ------------------------------                   ----------------------
         Carl D. Panattoni                                Frank G. Fawcett

Its:                                               Its:       AVP
        ------------------------------                  ------------------------

Date:       4-15-99                                Date:    3/23/99
        ------------------------------                   -----------------------


By:     /s/ Jack Van Valkenburgh                   By:   /s/ Bonnie Tragni
        ------------------------------                   -----------------------
         Jack Van Valkenburgh                             Bonnie Tragni

Its:                                               Its:  Real Estate Dir.
        ------------------------------                   -----------------------

Date:           4/15/99                            Date:      3/23/99
        ------------------------------                   -----------------------