alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.8    
    


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

PURSUANT TO 3807(E) OF THE DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST ACT

(12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.)  


        THIS Certificate of Amendment is being duly executed and filed on behalf of each Delaware statutory trust (collectively, the "Trusts") represented by Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, the undersigned, as trustee, to amend the respective Certificates of Trust of the Trusts pursuant to §3807(e) of the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.) (the "Act"). 



        1.     Amendment of Trust. The Certificate of Trust of each of the Trusts is hereby amended by changing the name of the trustee
of the Trusts in the State of Delaware to Chase Bank USA, National Association. 


        2.     Effective Date. This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate in accordance with Section 3807(e) of the Act. 



	

 	
 	

CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, formerly known as CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  SARIKA M. SHETH      

	 	 	Name:	 	Sarika M. Sheth
	 	 	Title:	 	Trust Officer
	

 	
 	

State of Delaware

Secretary of State

Division of Corporations

Delivered 06:30 PM 03/14/2005

Filed 06:30 PM 03/14/2005

SRV 050212787—2876286 FILE













QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.8
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER PROVISIONS
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Factors Affecting Efforts to Limit Payments to AIG Counterparties

              																	United States. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 						*Factors Affecting Efforts to Limit Payments to AIG Counterparties, SIGTARP-10-003*,												Washington: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										November 17, 2009,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5111,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
EXHIB



	
Certificate Number XX 
	
XXX Shares

	 	
of Series A Preferred Stock






 

 

 

 

 

MM Companies, Inc.



Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware



 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



is the owner of 



XXX (X) Shares of



 

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

PAR VALUE $0.01 EACH



 

XXXX XX, 200X



___________________________________           ________________________________

Chairman of the BoardSecretary



THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAWS AND NEITHER SUCH SECURITIES NOR ANY INTEREST IN SUCH SECURITIES MAY BE OFFERED, SOLD, PLEDGED, ASSIGNED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT UPON SUCH REGISTRATION OR UPON DELIVERY TO THE COMPANY OF AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY STATING THAT SUCH SALE, PLEDGE, ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER IS EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION UNDER SUCH ACT OR LAWS.
#### § 26.670 Suspension.

*Suspension* means an action taken by a Federal agency that immediately prohibits a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions for a temporary period, pending completion of an investigation and any judicial or administrative proceedings that may ensue. A recipient so prohibited is suspended, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689. Suspension of a recipient is a distinct and separate action from suspension of an award or suspension of payments under an award.
#### S. L. Knappen and another *vs.*Peter P. Swensen.

February 11, 1889.

Review of Order granting New Trial on the Evidence. — The rule stated in *Hicks*v. *Stone,*13 Minn. 398, (434,) that an order granting a ■ new trial for insufficiency of the evidence, will not be reversed, unless the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict, applies, although the trial was by the court without a jury.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, granting a new trial, after trial by the court. The action was for the value of goods, the alleged property of plaintiffs, attached by the defendant, sheriff of Hennepin county, as the property of one Hass, from whom plaintiffs claimed to have purchased them prior to the attachment.

*Knappen á Wright,*for appellants.

*C. H. Childs,*for respondent.

Gileillan, G. J.

The motion for a new trial in the court below was made upon four grounds, three of which were not well founded. The fourth, to wit, that the decision is not justified by the evidence, is the only one on which the order granting a new trial can be sustained. Although the cause was tried by the court, and not by a, jury, we think the rule in *Hicks*v. *Stone,*13 Minn. 398, (434,) that an order granting a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence will not be reversed unless the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict, applies. Where the cause was decided as to the facts by the court itself, it has, when called on to review the evidence on a motion for a new trial, the same facilities, beyond what this court can have, to estimate the effect naturally produced on the *172mind by the evidence and conduct of the trial, and for forming a judgment on the merits of the controversy, that it has where the issues of fact were tried by a jury. On an examination of the evidence it does not appear manifestly and palpably in favor of the decision. On the transfer of the property claimed by plaintiffs to have been made to them, it was left in the apparent possession and control of the seller, as fully as it was in his possession and control before the alleged transfer. If there can be said to have been any change of possession, it was merely a constructive, not an actual, change. This made it necessary for the plaintiffs to remove the presumption of fraudulent intent, which, as in favor of creditors, or subsequent purchasers, attaches to sales of goods and chattels not followed by an actual and continued change of possession. The evidence on the question of good faith in the sale was very far from being satisfactory. It is true there was no evidence that the plaintiff in the writ under which the defendant took the goods was a creditor at the time of the alleged transfer to these plaintiffs, and also that the stipulation in open court at the beginning of the trial, as to what were the issues to be tried, if taken literally, did not dispense with the production of such evidence. But from it, and the record of the trial, we are satisfied that the cause was tried on the theory that it conceded the fact.

Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1537

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535 & Presidential 

Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number 

C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of America, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS; JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH; JUSTICE 

SAMUEL ALITO; JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT; JUSTICE CLARENCE 

THOMAS; JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR; JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN; 

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON; JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH; PUBLIC 

INFORMATION OFFICER OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; CLERK 

OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; UNITED STATES SUPREME 

COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:24-cv-01755-DCC)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 3024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1537 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1537 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Satish Emrit, who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number 

P60005535, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil 

complaint for improper venue.*

 The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal and 

advised Emrit that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Emrit has forfeited appellate review by 

failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The district court’s order is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant 

Emrit leave to amend his complaint. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en 

banc) (order).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1537 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
### §302106. Retention of name

Notwithstanding section 43(c) of the Act of July 5, 1946 (known as the Trademark Act of 1946) (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)), buildings and structures on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register (either individually or as part of a historic district), or designated as an individual landmark or as a contributing building in a historic district by a unit of State or local government, may retain the name historically associated with the building or structure.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3193.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 302106 | 16 U.S.C. 470a(a)(1)(A) (last sentence). | Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §101(a)(1)(A) (last sentence), as added Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title III, §3007], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–551. |

Section
### §5706c. Reimbursement for taxes incurred on money received for travel expenses

(a) Under regulations prescribed pursuant to section 5707 of this title, the head of an agency or department, or his or her designee, may use appropriations or other funds available to the agency for administrative expenses, for the reimbursement of Federal, State, and local income taxes incurred by an employee of the agency or by an employee and such employee's spouse (if filing jointly), for any travel or transportation reimbursement made to an employee for which reimbursement or an allowance is provided.

(b) Reimbursements under this section shall include an amount equal to all income taxes for which the employee and spouse, as the case may be, would be liable due to the reimbursement for the taxes referred to in subsection (a). In addition, reimbursements under this section shall include penalties and interest, for the tax years 1993 and 1994 only, as a result of agencies failing to withhold the appropriate amounts for tax liabilities of employees affected by the change in the deductibility of travel expenses made by Public Law 102–486.

(Added Pub. L. 105–264, §4(a), Oct. 19, 1998, 112 Stat. 2354.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Public Law 102–486, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 102–486, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2776, known as the Energy Policy Act of 1992. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 13201 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–264, §4(c), Oct. 19, 1998, 112 Stat. 2354, provided that: "This section [enacting this section] shall be effective as of January 1, 1993."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997             FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997             FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          349055                  349055
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   114685                  114685
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      20861                   20861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1142998                 1142998
<PP&E>                                         2967288                 2992757
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1828936)               (1828936)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3177690                 3177690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           279606                  279606
<BONDS>                                           9727                    9727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        197318                  197318
<OTHER-SE>                                     2042576                 2042576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3177690                 3177690
<SALES>                                         341793                 1416182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (65128)                   68944
<CGS>                                           127216                  676637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   207759                 1106443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (3436)                    6883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (269451)               (1044382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (79352)                (318806)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (190099)                (725576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (190099)                (725576)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)                   (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)                   (.74)
        

</TABLE>
### §3172. Presidential Innovation Fellows Program advisory board

(a) In General.—The Administrator of General Services shall continue an advisory board to advise the Director of the Presidential Innovation Fellows Program by recommending such priorities and standards as may be beneficial to fulfill the mission of the Presidential Innovation Fellows Program and assist in identifying potential projects and placements for fellows. The advisory board may not participate in the selection process under section 3171(f).

(b) Chair; Membership.—The Administrator shall designate a representative to serve as the Chair of the advisory board. In addition to the Chair, the membership of the advisory board shall include—

(1) the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget;

(2) the Director of the Office of Personnel Management;

(3) the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government of the Office of Management and Budget;

(4) the Assistant to the President and Chief Technology Officer; and

(5) other individuals as may be designated by the Administrator.

(c) Consultation.—The advisory board may consult with industry, academia, or nonprofits to ensure the Presidential Innovation Fellows Program is continually identifying opportunities to apply advanced skillsets and innovative practices in effective ways to address the Nation's most significant challenges.

(Added Pub. L. 115–1, §2(a), Jan. 20, 2017, 131 Stat. 4.)
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Factors Affecting the Implementation of the Home Affordable Modification Program

              																	United States. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 						*Factors Affecting the Implementation of the Home Affordable Modification Program, SIGTARP-10-005*,												Washington: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										March 25, 2010,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5106,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Absenteeism in Commercial Shipyards

              																	Kennedy, Eleanor Virginia					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of Industrial Relations. 						*Absenteeism in Commercial Shipyards : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 734*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1943,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4225,			accessed on September 13, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DEON ANDRE RICHARDSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. ( 4:15

- cr - 00088

- RGD

- LRL

- 1 ; 4:17

- cv - 00085

- RGD )

Submitted : January 28, 2019 Decided: February 7 , 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Deon Andre Richardson , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Deon Andre Ric hardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merit s, a prisoner 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional ri ght. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED