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

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

                                     (Front)

No.______                                                          _______Shares

               Incorporated Under The Laws of The State of Florida

                   FIRST COMMUNITY BANK CORPORATION OF AMERICA
                            Authorized Capital Stock
                        5,000,000 Shares of Common Stock

This certifies that _____________________ is the owner of _______________ shares
of Capital Stock of First Community Bank Corporation of America, transferable
only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by
Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers, and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed this _____ day of __________, A.D. 20__.

[SEAL]  ___________________________       _______________________________
        Kay M. McAleer, Secretary         Kenneth P. Cherven, President

                                 Par Value $.10

                                     (Back)

     For Value Received, _______ hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto_______________________________________________________________________
Shares of the Capital Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint___________________________________ Attorney
to transfer the said Stock on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated ______________________, 20___
In the presence of ________________________________

Notice: The signature of this assignment must correspond with the name as
written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without
alteration, or any change whatever.
39250.

#### HOLBROOK *et al.*v. RODGERS.

Decided January 19, 1962.

*220*Claude Hambrick,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Holliman ■& Adams, John E. Holliman, Dickson Adams,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. In her sworn answer and objection the mother stated that she “was divorced from the father of said child.” At the hearing, the mother testified that she was never divorced from the father of the child because he had a living wife at the time of their supposed marriage.

This “false swearing” is the basis for petitioners’ contention that the court should not have considered any of the mother’s testimony under the admonition of *Code*§ 38-1806, where it is provided in pertinent part that “. . . if a witness shall swear wilfully and knowingly falsely, his testimony shall be disregarded entirely, unless corroborated by circumstances or. other unimpeached evidence.” This stringent rule has been modified somewhat in that what is falsely sworn to must be material. Green, Georgia Law of Evidence (1957) § 133, p. 330 (n. 14).

The mother contends that there is no proper assignment of error on this point; that the false swearing was not as to a. material matter; and, that the false swearing was not “wilfully and knowingly” done. Even assuming that the petitioners could successfully show all of the above, the plain language of the statute is that the entire testimony of the witness is not to be disregarded if “corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeached evidence.” And see under *Code*§ 38-1806 catchword “Corroboration.”

Was there corroborating unimpeached evidence here on the primary issue of the intent of the mother to> abandon the child? The admitted fact of the mother having left the child in the custody of another for some two and one-half years is not sufficient in itself to constitute abandonment. *Johnson v. Strickland,*88 Ga. App. 281 (76 SE2d 533). There was unimpeached evidence by three ministers corroborating the mother’s testimony, especially testimony that the placement in the Methodist Children’s Home was temporary in that the mother hoped *221to be able to reclaim her children (there were five in all) and that petitioners’ attorney had. prepared a consent for adoption which the administration of the Home had unsuccessfully attempted to have the mother sign. This evidence is sufficient to eliminate the prohibition contained in *Code*§ 38-1806. The case is then for the court, which has the same right to test the credibility of witnesses as the jury. *Goggans v. State,*14 Ga. App. 822 (2) (82 SE 357); *Boynton v. State,*11 Ga. App. 268 (75 SE 9).

2. Petitioners’ other contention concerns the general grounds, which amounts to an assignment of error that the evidence demanded a verdict for petitioners. As can be seen from the discussion above, there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that there was no abandonment by the mother, even if the testimony of the mother be entirely disregarded. There is no merit in the general grounds.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Custer, J., concur.*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). N H Y / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P A B L O N E G R E T E R O S I L A ; MA M AG DA LE NA GA RC I A A LVAREZ , P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74685 A ge nc yN os . A 095- 307- 523

A 095- 307- 522 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . P abl o N e gr e t e R os i l aa nd M aM a gda l e naG ar c i aA l var e z , s pous e s a nd na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of

M e xi c o, pe t i t i on pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve 

# FI LED FEB 25 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSN H Y / Res ea r ch 07- 74685 2 j ur i s di c t i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1252. R e vi e w i ng f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , P er ezv. Mukasey , 51 6 F . 3d 77 0, 77 3 (9th C i r. 20 08 ), w e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e o p e n w h e r e th e n e w e v id e n c e th e yp r e s e n te dd idn o t s up p o rt p r im af a c ie e lig ib lityf

o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 592, 60 0 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Edd Helms Group, Inc.
and Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the quarter ended November 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, W. Edd Helms, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer; Dean A.
Goodson, Chief Financial Officer; and L. Wade Helms, Executive Vice President 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 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
         the company.

Date: January 12, 2007       /s/  W. Edd Helms, Jr.
      ---------------       ----------------------
                            W. Edd Helms, Jr., President, Chief
                              Executive Officer

      January 12, 2007       /s/  Dean A. Goodson
      ---------------       --------------------
                            Dean A. Goodson, Chief Financial Officer

      January 12, 2007       /s/  L. Wade Helms
      ---------------       ------------------
                           L. Wade Helms, Executive Vice President
# C_2016165EN.01002003.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/20

---

Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Ezz v Council

(Case T-377/14) (1)

1

(2016/C 165/25)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

1

---
§ 1.581-1 Banks. ( a ) In order to be a bank as defined in section 581, an institution must be a corporation for federal tax purposes. See § 301.7701-2(b) of this chapter for the definition of a corporation.
( b ) This section is effective as of January 1, 1997.
[T.D. 8697, 61 FR 66588, Dec. 18, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 196 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 196

   To authorize the printing of additional copies of a Senate report 
               entitled ``Developments in Aging: 1993''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 25 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

Mr. Pryor submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize the printing of additional copies of a Senate report 
               entitled ``Developments in Aging: 1993''.

    Resolved, That there shall be printed for the use of the Special 
Committee on Aging, in addition to the usual number of copies, the 
maximum number of copies of volumes 1 and 2 of the annual report of the 
committee to the Senate, entitled ``Developments in Aging: 1993'', 
which additional copies may be printed at a cost not to exceed $1,200.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18057]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,262]


Penn-Union Corporation, Edinboro, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 17, 
2009, by the Glass, Molders, Pottery International Union (GMP) Local 
61, on behalf of workers of Penn-Union Corporation, Edinboro, 
Pennsylvania.
    The petition is a duplicate of petition number TA-W-70,689, filed 
on May 28, 2009, that is subject of an ongoing investigation. 
Therefore, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose 
and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th of June 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18057 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8083 

To prohibit Federal funding for National Public Radio, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2024 

Mr. BANKS (for himself, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. 

WEBER of Texas, Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. BABIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding for National Public Radio, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defund NPR Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NA6 TIONAL PUBLIC RADIO. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—After the date of the enactment 

8 of this Act, no Federal funds may, directly or indirectly, 

9 be made available to or used to support an organization 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8083 IH

1 described in subsection (b), including through the payment 

2 of dues to or the purchase of programming from such or3 ganization by a public broadcast station using Federal 

4 funds received by such station. 

5 (b) ORGANIZATIONS DESCRIBED.—The organizations 

6 described in this subsection are— 

7 (1) the organization known, as of the date of 

8 the enactment of this Act, as ‘‘National Public 

9 Radio’’; and 

10 (2) any successor organization to the organiza11 tion described in paragraph (1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Immunobiology of Xenotransplantation.                    

*Date:*                         September 18, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health,  6700B Rockledge Drive,  3264,  Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maryam Feili-Hariri, PhD,  Scientific Review Officer,  Immunology Review Branch,  Scientific Review Program,  National Institutes of Health/NIAID,  6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616,  Bethesda, MD 20892-7616,  301-402-5658,                         *haririmf@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 24, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-18225 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tryon StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**  Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Servicer and Special Servicer and U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator and Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-HAUL (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 10.8 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing do hereby certify that: 1. A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) , and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.  /s/ Daniel MarthinsenDaniel Marthinsen, Managing DirectorWells Fargo Bank   

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------|
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00061-CR

JESSICA ANN CAHALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17F1143-005

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jessica Ann Cahall has filed an untimely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment 

revoking her community supervision and sentencing her to two years’ incarceration for 

possession of a controlled substance. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Sentence was imposed in this matter on January 9, 2023, and Cahall did not file a motion 

for new trial. As a result, Cahall’s notice of appeal was due on or before February 8, 2023. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Cahall’s notice of appeal was not filed until March 24, 2023, fortyfour days past the deadline for filing such notice. Consequently, Cahall’s attempt to appeal her

revocation judgment in this matter was untimely. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has 

expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over 

an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. 

State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

By letter dated April 6, 2023, we notified Cahall that her notice of appeal appeared to be 

untimely and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Cahall 

twenty days to respond to our letter and to demonstrate how we have jurisdiction over the appeal 

notwithstanding the noted defect. Although Cahall responded to our letter, she failed to 

demonstrate how we have jurisdiction over her appeal.
3

Because Cahall did not timely file her notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: May 8, 2023

Date Decided: May 9, 2023

Do Not Publish
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby accepted and
acknowledged, by and between TVE Corporation, formerly AlphaCom Corporation (the
"Company")  and  Joseph  Stiuso  ("Consultant")  as  defined  in  the Consulting
Agreement,  the  parties  agree  as  follows:

     (1)     Consultant  performed consulting services to the Company which have
not  been  paid  and  there  has been a change in control of the Company and new
management  would  like  to  pay  Consultant  through  the issuance of shares of
Company  common  stock;

     (2)     Consultant is owed $US 81,963.51 by the Company and the Company
desires to issue Consultant 993,497 shares of the Company's common stock (the
"Shares") in lieu of such payment and register such shares at the time of
initial issuance, or immediately thereafter, on Form S-8 under the Securities
Act of 1933.

     (3)     Consultant  desires  to  receive  the  Shares  in consideration for
amounts  owed  by  the  Company.

     Unless specifically modified by this Agreement, all terms and conditions of
the Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  Dated: April 1,
2003.

TVE  CORPORATION

By: /s/ Bruce S. Cohen
--------------------------------------------
Bruce  S.  Cohen,  Chief  Executive  Officer



/s/ Joseph Stiuso
-------------------
JOSEPH  STIUSO

<PAGE>
#### § 1.457-1 General overviews of section 457.

Section 457 provides rules for nonqualified deferred compensation plans established by eligible employers as defined under § 1.457-2(d). Eligible employers can establish either deferred compensation plans that are eligible plans and that meet the requirements of section 457(b) and §§ 1.457-3 through 1.457-10, or deferred compensation plans or arrangements that do not meet the requirements of section 457(b) and §§ 1.457-3 through 1.457-10 and that are subject to tax treatment under section 457(f) and § 1.457-11.

[T.D. 9075, 68 FR 41234, July 11, 2003]
- 492 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

302 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. SAVAGE

Cite as 302 Neb. 492

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Courtney J. Savage, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 15, 2019. No. S-17-1166.

supplemental opinion

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Susan

I. Strong, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.

Darik J. Von Loh, of Hernandez Frantz, Von Loh, appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellant, Courtney J. Savage, concerning our opinion in State 

v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873, 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). We overrule 

the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows:

In the subsection “(a) Authentication,” after the fourth 

sentence of the fourth paragraph, we insert the following 

language:

As for Savage’s contention that the State did not properly 

authenticate messages sent to him by others, we again 

disagree. The State was required only to introduce testimony sufficient to establish that the evidence was what 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/03/2019 08:07 AM CDT
- 493 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

302 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. SAVAGE

Cite as 302 Neb. 492

the State claimed it to be. The State did not claim that 

messages sent by others were anything more than messages sent to Savage’s cell phone. See State v. Elseman, 

287 Neb. 134, 841 N.W.2d 225 (2014).

Savage, 301 Neb. at 885, 920 N.W.2d at 703.

In subsection “(b) Hearsay,” following the second to the last 

paragraph, we insert the following paragraph:

We also reject Savage’s argument that text messages 

sent to his cell phone by unidentified individuals contained 

inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is “a statement, other than 

one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or 

hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 2016). 

Messages sent to Savage’s cell phone were not offered 

for the truth of the matters asserted. They were offered to 

prove that the statements were made.

Savage, 301 Neb. at 887, 920 N.W.2d at 704.

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modified.

 Motion for rehearing overruled.