alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 4.8

                                   [SPECIMEN]

                                                      SEE LEGEND ON REVERSE SIDE

NUMBER                                                         SHARES
  D

                            OSAGE SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.
              Incorporated under the Laws of the State Of Delaware


<TABLE>
<S>                                          <C>                              
      10,000,000 SHARES COMMON STOCK         SERIES A $3.00 CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
         PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE                     PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE

SERIES B $3.00 CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK   SERIES C $3.00 CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
        PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE                      PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE
</TABLE>

                         SERIES D CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED
                                      STOCK
                            PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE

     THIS CERTIFIES THAT___________________________________________ is the owner
     of _____________________________________ shares of the SERIES D CONVERTIBLE

     PREFERRED STOCK OF OSAGE SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., fully paid and
     non-assessable, transferable only on the books of the Corporation in person
     or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

     The corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so
     requests, a statement of the powers, designations, preferences and
     relative, participating, optional, or other special rights of each class of
     stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions
     of such preferences and/or rights.

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. 1999.

_________________________________               ________________________________
  SECRETARY/ASSISTANT SECRETARY                           PRESIDENT
<PAGE>   2
                                 [REVERSE SIDE]

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ______ HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER UNTO


     Please Insert Social Security or other
         Identifying Number of Assignee

     _______________________________________

     _______________________________________

     __________________________________________________________________________


     ______________________________SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE,
     AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT __________________________
     ATTORNEY, TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN NAMED
     CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.


     DATED: _______________, 19______

     IN PRESENCE OF 

     _______________________________________

     _______________________________________
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2505 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and extend the 

vehicle refueling property credit, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mr. DONNELLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

and extend the vehicle refueling property credit, 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 ‘‘Promoting the Use 

5 of Mixed Petroleum Act’’ or the ‘‘E–85 PUMP Act’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2505 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO VEHICLE REFUELING PROP2 ERTY CREDIT. 

3 (a) INCREASE IN CREDIT PERCENTAGE.—Subsection 

4 (a) of section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

5 (relating to alternative fuel vehicle refueling property cred6 it allowed) is amended by striking ‘‘30 percent’’ and in7 serting ‘‘50 percent’’. 

8 (b) INCREASE IN CREDIT LIMITATION.—Paragraph 

9 (1) of section 30C(b) of such Code (relating to limitation) 

10 is amended by striking ‘‘$30,000’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘$50,000’’. 

12 (c) EXTENSION OF CREDIT.—Paragraph (2) of sec13 tion 30C(g) of such Code (relating to termination) is 

14 amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2014’’. 

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

17 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

18 SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF GASOHOL COMPETITION ACT OF 

19 1980. 

20 Section 26 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 26a) is 

21 amended— 

22 (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub23 section (d); and 

24 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol25 lowing: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2505 IH

1 ‘‘(c) RESTRICTION PROHIBITED.—For purposes of 

2 subsection (a), restricting the right of a franchisee to in3 stall on the premises of that franchisee qualified alter4 native fuel vehicle refueling property (as defined in section 

5 30C(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) shall be 

6 considered an unlawful restriction.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Cite as 2015 Ark. 315



## ARKANSAS S UPREME COURT

No. CR-15-490

ZECKEYA K. PERRY PETITIONER
V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT Opinion Delivered September 10, 2015 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 60CR-12-1791] HONORABLE HERBERT T. WRIGHT, JR., JUDGE

MOTION DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM
In 2013, judgment was entered reflecting that Zeckeya K. Perry had been found guilty by a jury of capital murder and aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Perry v. State , 2014 Ark. 406. The mandate of this court issued on October 21, 2014. On January 5, 2015, seventy-six days after the mandate issued, Perry filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2013). The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not filed within the time limits set by the Rule for filing petitions. Perry did not timely file a notice of appeal from the court’s order within thirty days of the date that the order was entered in accordance with Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(a)(4) (2014), and he now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal.Cite as 2015 Ark. 215

We need not consider the merits of the motion as it is clear from the record that Perry could not prevail if an appeal were permitted to go forward. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be allowed to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Justus v. State , 2012 Ark. 91. In this case, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Perry’s Rule 37.1 petition because the petition was not timely filed.
See Wilmoth v. State , 369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (2007). Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c)(ii), when there was an appeal from a judgment of conviction, a petition for relief must be filed in the trial court within sixty days of the date that the mandate was issued by the appellate court. Justus , 2012 Ark. 91. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and, if the petition is not filed within that period, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief. State v. Tejeda-Acosta , 2013 Ark. 217, 427 S.W.3d 673. Perry’s petition before the trial court was not timely filed. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction. Id

. Motion dismissed. Zeckeya K. Perry , pro se petitioner. No response.

2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIETZ INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC

ADJUSTERS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a

California corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Illinois corporation,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-56267

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-06662-MMM-E

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

APR 15 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Plaintiff Dietz International Public Adjusters of California, Inc. appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Evanston Insurance Co. in

Dietz’s diversity action seeking reimbursement of payments made to settle claims

against it. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Hansen v. Dep’t of Treasury, 528 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm. 

The statutory language of Section 554 of the California Insurance Code is

unambiguous and does not preclude Evanston from enforcing a provision in

Dietz’s professional liability insurance policy that bars Dietz from making

voluntary payments to settle claims against it. See Insua v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 104

Cal. App. 4th 737, 743 (2002), review denied, No. S112788 (Feb 25, 2003)

(holding that insurer could assert voluntary payments defense even when it failed

to promptly assert a late notice defense).

On its face, Section 554 provides only for the waiver of an insurer’s late

notice defense, a substantively different defense than the voluntary payments

defense that Evanston asserted at summary judgment. See id. Because Dietz failed

to demonstrate that Evanston intentionally relinquished its right to raise its

voluntary payments defense, Evanston has not waived that defense under

California law. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1, 31 (1995).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021461EN.01000501.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 461/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 461/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 November 2021

(2021/C 461/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1448 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,50 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4370 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85505 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0085 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0568 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9508 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,238 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 366,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6428 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9488 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 11,3987 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5690 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4416 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9206 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6293 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5494 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 349,10 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,4919 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3047 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5123 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 239,91 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7692 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,995 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 82,6649 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,527 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,1902 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,6472 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,1930 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1448

JPY

Japanese yen

130,50

DKK

Danish krone

7,4370

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85505

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0085

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0568

ISK

Iceland króna

150,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9508

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,238

HUF

Hungarian forint

366,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6428

RON

Romanian leu

4,9488

TRY

Turkish lira

11,3987

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5690

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4416

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9206

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6293

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5494

KRW

South Korean won

1 349,10

ZAR

South African rand

17,4919

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3047

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5123

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 239,91

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7692

PHP

Philippine peso

56,995

RUB

Russian rouble

82,6649

THB

Thai baht

37,527

BRL

Brazilian real

6,1902

MXN

Mexican peso

23,6472

INR

Indian rupee

85,1930

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
§ 79.95 Grantee reporting requirements. ( a ) VA may require grantees to provide, in such form as may be prescribed, such reports or answers in writing to specific questions, surveys, or questionnaires as VA determines necessary to carry out the Grant Program.
( b ) At least once per year, or at the frequency set by VA, each grantee must submit to VA a report containing information relating to operational effectiveness; fiscal responsibility; legal services grant agreement compliance; and legal and regulatory compliance. This report must include a breakdown of how the grantee used the legal services grant funds; the number of participants assisted; information on each participant's gender, age, race, and service era; a description of the legal services provided to each participant; and any other information that VA requests.
( c ) VA may request additional reports to allow VA to fully assess the provision legal services under this part.
( d ) Grantees must relate financial data to performance data and develop unit cost information whenever practical.
( e ) All pages of the reports must cite the assigned legal services grant number and be submitted in a timely manner as set forth in the grant agreement.
( f ) Grantees must provide VA with consent to post information from reports on the internet and use such information in other ways deemed appropriate by VA. Grantees must clearly redact information that is confidential based on attorney-client privilege, unless that privilege has been waived by the client.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control number 2900-TBD)
#### John Finck, Respondent, *v.*Simon Menke, Appellant.

Ajppeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

L. L. O. Benedict, for appellant.

Leventritt & Brennan, for respondent.

O’Gobman, J.

Where a breach of contract occurs, the aggrieved party is not always entitled by way of damages to the stipulated, compensation. The recovery must be confined to the actual loss sustained. It is fundamental that the plaintiff cannot deríve a greater advantage from a breach than from a performance. This rule does not seem to have been followed in the case at bar. The plaintiff agreed to furnish the defendant a mortgage loan at a cost of $130, which was to cover all expenses, including lawyer’s fees as well as brokeráge. The defendant refused to accept the loan, and judgment was awarded against him- for $130. ' It is obvious this is more than the plaintiff could hope to receive if the entire transaction had been consummated. The estimated or probable legal charges and the other expenses incidental to closing a loan, all of which were to be borne by the plaintiff, were evidently not considered in determining the extent of plaintiff’s damage.

The plaintiff also urges that the proof failed to establish a refusal to accept the loan under the terms of the agreement. This contention might be deemed to be well taken if no- evidence other than the written instrument had been received touching the engagement' of the parties. In view of the presence in the case of this parol proof, which was received without objection, we cannot hold-that the proofs fail to disclose a breach on defendant’s part.

For the - error respecting the award of damages, however, the judgment must be reversed.

Beeeman, R. J., and Gieg-erioh, J., concur.

. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   mar-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,863
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,568
<INVENTORY>                                    828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,980
<PP&E>                                         38,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          39,868
<BONDS>                                        33,073
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    12,959
<COMMON>                                       60,132
<OTHER-SE>                                     (34,171)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,505
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,326
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   50
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,310)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0745 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RONALD LEWIS AMELINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 27 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2024

08/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0745
Exhibit 32(a)


                CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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  IGENE  Biotechnology,  Inc.  (the   "Company")
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 31,  2003,  as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen F. Hiu, President 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, 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,  as
          amended; 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: August 14, 2003                   By:  /s/ STEPHEN F. HIU
                                            ___________________________
                                                 STEPHEN F. HIU
                                                 President
#### § 4.149 [Reserved]
# Official Journal L 295/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.295.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 295 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 566 November 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.295.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 295

English edition

Legislation

Volume 566 November 2013

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 1051/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) | 11 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 1051/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances

1

*

Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur)

11

| | | II   Non-legislative acts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen | 27 |

II   Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen

acquis

27

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.