alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1  



INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 


GOLDEN MINERALS COMPANY  

 






 



					
	NUMBER	 	 	 	STOCK
	 	 	THIS CERTIFIES THAT	 	 
	

 	
 	
IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF	
 	
 
	 	 	 	 	CUSIP: 381119106

ISIN: US3811191069




 

         FULLY
PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, US$0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE 


of
the above named Corporation transferable on the books of the Corporation by the registered holder in person or by duly authorized attorney in writing upon surrender of this Certificate properly
endorsed. 


This
Certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar of the Corporation. 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 

 






 



			
	 	 	DATED:
	

 	
 	
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED
	
 PRESIDENT	
 	
OLYMPIA TRANSFER SERVICES INC. TORONTO ONTARIO

TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
	SECRETARY	 	 
	BY	 	AUTHORIZED OFFICER
	
 SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE	
 	
VOIR LES INSTRUCTIONS DE SÉCURITÉ AU VERSO




 

 The
stock represented by this Certificate are transferable at the offices of Olympia Transfer Services Inc., in the City of Toronto, Ontario 







[REVERSE
OF SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE] 


THE
CLASS OF STOCK REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAS RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS ATTACHED OT IT. THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO STOCKHOLDERS, ON DEMAND AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL
COPY OF THE TEXT OF THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO EACH CLASS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED AND TO EACH SERIES INSOFAR AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN FIXED BY THE DIRECTORS, AND THE
AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTORS TO FIX THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS OF SUBSEQUENT SERIES. 


        FOR
VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto 


PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE 







  










(Name
and address of transferee) 
















 
 






 



			
	
  







 	
 	
shares of common stock registered in the name of the undersigned on the books
	of the Corporation named on the face of this certificate and represented hereby, and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
	
 







 	
 	
 the attorney of the undersigned to transfer the said shares on the register of
	transfers and books of the Corporation with full power of substitution hereunder.




 


 






 



											
	
 Dated:	
 	
 







 	
 	
20	
 	
    






 	
 	
Signature:	
 	
    





  (Signature of shareholder)




 


 






 



					
	Signature Guaranteed By:	 	  







 	 	 




 

 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 enlargement, or change whatsoever, and
must be guaranteed by a major Canadian Schedule 1 Chartered bank, a major Canadian trust company or a member of a recognized Medallion Signature Guarantee Program.
Exhibit 10.50
  PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
 
 Re
    
    Employment Agreement dated as of October 1, 2003 between Korn/Ferry
International (Company or Korn/Ferry) and Robert McNabb, as
renewed and amended on September 29, 2006 (the Employment Agreement)
   Term
   Changes to Termination and Severance Provisions
   1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Sincerely,/s/ Gary BurnisonGary Burnison, Chief Executive Officer ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO
 /s/ Robert McNabb
    
    June 252009Robert McNabb
    
    Date of Signature
 3
#### § 18.86 Hearing room conduct.

Participants must conduct themselves in an orderly manner. The consumption of food or beverage, and rearranging courtroom furniture are prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the judge. Electronic devices must be silenced and must not disrupt the proceedings. Parties, witnesses and spectators are prohibited from using video or audio recording devices to record hearings.
§ 61.169 Letters of authorization for institutions of higher education. ( a ) An institution of higher education that is accredited, as defined in § 61.1, may apply for a letter of authorization for the purpose of certifying its graduates for an airline transport pilot certificate under the academic and aeronautical experience requirements in § 61.160. The application must be in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
( b ) An institution of higher education must comply with the provisions of the letter of authorization and may not certify a graduate unless it determines that the graduate has satisfied the requirements of § 61.160, as appropriate.
( c ) The Administrator may rescind or amend a letter of authorization if the Administrator determines that the institution of higher education is not complying or is unable to comply with the provisions of the letter of authorization.
[Doc. No. FAA-2010-0100, 78 FR 42377, July 15, 2013]
#### DUNCAN v. STATE ex WILLIAM

Ohio Supreme Court.

No. 21391.

Decided Dec. 19, 1928.

MARSHALL, C. J.

ERROR PROCEEDINGS.

(260 S) Where a court of appeals certifies a cause to this court for review and final determination upon its finding that a judgment upon which they have agreed is in conflict with a judgment pronounced upon the same question by any other court of appeals of the state, as provided by Section 6, Article 4, of the Constitution, the cause must be filed in this court within seventy days from the entry of judgment in the court of appeals, as provided by Section 12270 General Code.

ACTIONS.

(10 B2) A bastardy proceeding is subject to the procedure provided in the code of civil procedure and a judgment rendered in such a proceeding can only be reviewed if an error proceeding is filed within seventy days from the date of the entry of judgment in the court from which such error proceeding is prosecuted.

Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The district court stayed the action, finding 

that the 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic bankruptcy stay applied and that the 

amount of the underlying obligation was uncertain because of the 

bankruptcy litigation. 

As to the automatic bankruptcy stay, the stay is generally 

applicable to the debtor only, not a guarantor. See In re PTI Holding 

Corp., 346 B.R. 820, 833-34 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2006); Edwards v. Ghandour, 

123 Nev. 105, 113-14 & n.10, 159 P.3d 1086, 1091-92 & n.10 (2007) 

(explaining that the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to codebtors and guarantors), abrogated on other grounds by Five Star Capital 

Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1053-54, 194 P.3d 709, 712-13 (2008); Mfrs. 

& Traders Trust Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 94 Nev. 551, 556, 583 

P.2d 444, 447 (1978) (holding that a guaranty is a contract separate from 

the underlying debt obligation), overruled on unrelated grounds by First 

Interstate Bank of Nev. v. Shields, 102 Nev. 616, 730 P.2d 429 (1986). As 

to the uncertainty of the underlying obligation in the bankruptcy case, the 

discharge or partial payment of the debt in bankruptcy by itself will not 

diminish the amounts owed by the guarantor, the district court has not 

made any findings or conclusions of law that the terms of the guaranty 

contract will be satisfied by payment or discharge through bankruptcy, 

and should the guarantor be required to satisfy the debtor's debt under 

the guaranty contract, the guarantor will be subrogated to the petitioner's 

rights in the bankruptcy. See In re Harvey Cole Co., 2 B.R. 517, 520 

(Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1980) (noting that "the creditor thus has a right, 

unaffected by bankruptcy, to turn to the guarantor for satisfaction of a 

debt," and the guarantor then becomes subrogated to the rights of the 

creditor against the debtor). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Accordingly, having considered the parties arguments and the 

appendices, we conclude that the district court improperly granted the 

stay, and we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the 

district court to vacate its order staying the litigation. 

r4v-S" 

Dougla 

(1.444•■■•••■■••■*41.. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Dubowsky Law Office, Chtd. 

Gunderson Law Firm 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
#### § 1471.710 When does a suspension take effect?

A suspension is effective when the suspending official signs the decision to suspend.
§ 1471.305 May I enter into a covered transaction with an excluded or disqualified person? ( a ) You as a participant may not enter into a covered transaction with an excluded person, unless the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service grants an exception under § 1471.120.
( b ) You may not enter into any transaction with a person who is disqualified from that transaction, unless you have obtained an exception under the disqualifying statute, Executive order, or regulation.
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.717 Waiver of participant conditions.

After the termination of a mail rate conference hereunder, the air carrier whose rates were in issue may petition the DOT decisionmaker for a release from the obligations imposed upon it and all other persons by § 302.711. The DOT decisionmaker will grant such petition only after a detailed and convincing showing is made in the petition and supporting exhibits and documents that there is no reasonable possibility that any of the abuses sought to be prevented will occur or that the Department's processes will in any way be prejudiced. There will be no hearing or oral argument on the petition and the DOT decisionmaker will grant or deny the request without being required to assign reasons therefor.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND PROMESA 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, Title III 

 as representative of Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., (Jointly Administered) 

 Debtors.1

________________________________________________/ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Jessey Nunez, certify that I am over the age of eighteen years old and employed as a 

paralegal at Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A. On November 15, 2022 the Ninth & Final Fee 

Application of Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A., as Special Litigation Counsel to Official 

Committee of Unsecured Creditors, for Services Rendered and Reimbursement of Expenses for 

Period of January 1, 2022 through July 31, 2022 [ECF No. 22880] and the Notice of Hearing on 

the same [ECF No. 22881] were electronically served, via CM/ECF notification upon all interested 

parties registered to receive electronic notification in this matter (which is incorporated herein by 

reference). I certify that on November 28, 2022, I caused a true and correct copy of the above-

                                                            

1

 The Debtors in these Title III cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number listed as a bankruptcy 

case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, 

as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3283 (LTS)) (Last Four Digits 

of Federal Tax ID: 3481), (ii) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

(“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3566 (LTS)) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686), (iii) Puerto Rico 

Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3567 (LTS)) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3808), (iv) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-

BK-3284 (LTS)) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-4780) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings 

Authority (“PBA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 19-BK-5523 (LTS)) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801). (Title III 

case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22924 Filed:11/28/22 Entered:11/28/22 17:42:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
mentioned documents to be served via U.S. Mail or E-Mail upon the parties listed on the Master 

Service List as of 11/16/2022, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 

Dated: November 28, 2022 

 /s/ Jessey Nunez 

 Jessey Nunez 

 

 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22924 Filed:11/28/22 Entered:11/28/22 17:42:49 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### KOENIG v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21617.

Decided June 12, 1929

Syllabus by

KINKADE, J.

CRIMINAL LAW

(190 C9) It is prejudicial error for the trial judge in a criminal prosecution based on 710-176 GC, to charge the jury that the prima facie presumption provided for in the second paragraph of that section is alone sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having issued a check on a bank in which he had not sufficient funds to meet the check, and that he issued the check with ,an intent to defraud the payee thereof.

(190 N3) When the state has in its possession documentary evidence forming part of the assets and flies of a bank closed and taken possession ' of by the state, which tends to establish the entire good faith of the accused and the want of intent on the part of the accused when issuing the check on the bank in which the accused did not then have to his credit sufficient funds to meet the check, and the state is unable to find and produce such evidence for use at the trial, but such documentary evidence is found and made available after trial and conviction, and is offered by the accused in support of his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it is prejudicial error to overrule the motion of the accused for a new trial on that ground.

Marshall, CJ, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.
# Table 8
#### Richard Hoag, App’lt, *v.*Henry M. Prime and Ano., Resp’ts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed May 27, 1889.)*

TTkdebtakin’G—Appeal—Liability of sureties—Code Civil Procedure,. §§ 812-1331.

The liability of sureties to an undertaking on an appeal is limited by the amount mentioned in the undertaking,

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a decision of the special term.

Action upon an undertaking given upon appeal, to the-general term from a judgment of foreclosure rendered in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

The undertaking was conditioned that if the judgment, appealed from was affirmed, “ the appellant would pay any deficiency which might occur upon the sale, in discharging the sum to pay which the sale was directed, with interest, and the costs and all expenses chargeable against the proceeds of sale, not exceeding the sum of $250.”

The sum of $250 was the amount fixed by a judge of the court below.

The judgment was affirmed; a sale was had; and upon such sale, there was a deficiency to the amount of $835.71.

Before action, defendants duly tendered to plaintiff the sum of $250, which was refused.

Plaintiff claimed judgment for the full amount of the deficiency, $835.71.

*477Judgment was rendered for the sum tendered ($250).

*A. W. Boynton,*for app’lt; *F. A. Rowe,*for resp’ts.

Per Curiam.

The liability of the defendants was limited by the amount mentioned in the undertaking. That was the amount fixed by the justice, in pursuance of section 1331, last sentence. It is important to the sureties that they should know the limit of their liability, and that they be enabled to justify, under section 812.

We have no doubt that the justice who tried the case decided correctly.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents, which may be set off against the recovery.
§ 17.12 How may a state simplify, consolidate, or substitute federally required state plans? ( a ) As used in this section: ( 1 ) *Simplify* means that a state may develop its own format, choose its own submission date, and select the planning period for a state plan.
( 2 ) *Consolidate* means that a state may meet statutory and regulatory requirements by combining two or more plans into one document and that the state can select the format, submission date, and planning period for the consolidated plan.
( 3 ) *Substitute* means that a state may use a plan or other document that it has developed for its own purposes to meet Federal requirements.
( b ) If not consistent with law, a state may decide to try to simplify, consolidate, or substitute federally required state plans without prior approval by the Secretary.
( c ) The Secretary reviews each state plan that a state has simplified, consolidated, or substituted and accepts the plan only if its contents meet Federal requirements.
#### § 93.69 Special requirements, Lake Campbell and Sixmile Lake Airports.

Each person operating an aircraft to or from Lake Campbell or Sixmile Lake Airport shall conform to the flow of traffic for the Lake operations that are depicted on the appropriate aeronautical charts.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4678 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the credit for 

electricity produced from certain renewable resources, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. HOEVEN, and Mrs. CAPITO) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable 

resources, 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 ‘‘PTC Elimination Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED 

6 FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES. 

7 (a) REPEAL OF CREDIT.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part IV of 

9 subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4678 IS

1 Code of 1986 is amended by striking section 45 (and 

2 by striking the item relating to such section in the 

3 table of sections for such subpart). 

4 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

5 (A) Section 38 of such Code is amended— 

6 (i) in subsection (b), by striking para7 graph (8), and 

8 (ii) in subsection (c)(4)(B), by strik9 ing clauses (iv) and (v). 

10 (B) Section 45J of such Code is amended 

11 by adding at the end the following new sub12 section: 

13 ‘‘(g) REFERENCES TO SECTION 45.—Any reference 

14 in this section to any provision of section 45 shall be treat15 ed as a reference to such provision as in effect immediately 

16 before its repeal.’’. 

17 (C) Section 45K(g)(2) of such Code is 

18 amended by striking subparagraph (E). 

19 (D) Section 48 of such Code is amended 

20 by adding at the end the following new sub21 section: 

22 ‘‘(e) REFERENCES TO SECTION 45.—Any reference 

23 in this section to any provision of section 45 shall be treat24 ed as a reference to such provision as in effect immediately 

25 before its repeal.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4678 IS

1 (E) Section 55(c)(1) of such Code is 

2 amended by striking ‘‘45(e)(11)(C),’’. 

3 (F) Section 59A(b)(4) of such Code is 

4 amended by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub5 paragraph (A) and by striking subparagraph 

6 (B). 

7 (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

8 by this subsection shall apply to electricity produced 

9 and sold after December 31, 2034. 

10 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FURTHER EX11 TENSION.—It is the sense of the Congress that the credit 

12 under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

13 should be allowed to expire and should not be extended 

14 beyond the termination dates specified in such section as 

15 of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
§ 35.43 Propeller hydraulic components. Applicants must show by test, validated analysis, or both, that propeller components that contain hydraulic pressure and whose structural failure or leakage from a structural failure could cause a hazardous propeller effect demonstrate structural integrity by: ( a ) A proof pressure test to 1.5 times the maximum operating pressure for one minute without permanent deformation or leakage that would prevent performance of the intended function.
( b ) A burst pressure test to 2.0 times the maximum operating pressure for one minute without failure. Leakage is permitted and seals may be excluded from the test.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63349, Oct. 24, 2008]
#### Bridgman *vs.*Gregory & Bloodgood.

An order for a bill of particulars is duly served by delivering a copy; the ‘ *original*need not be shown.

The question here was, whether the *original*order for a August, 1837. bill of particulars must be shown to the party called on for the bill, or whether service of a *copy*is sufficient.

*By the Court,*Nelson, Ch. J.

All orders which do not-require *personal service,*may be served by *copy.*See 1 Archb. Pr. 23. So also it was held by this court in *The Utica Bank*v. *Kibby,*7 Cowen, 148.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                               SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment, dated as of March 31, 2003, to the Severance
Agreement dated June 26, 2002, between US Airways, Inc. a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), and Alan W. Crellin (the "Executive") is entered into as of the
date first stated above.

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into the
Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set
forth herein.

     NOW THEREFORE, the following amendments are hereby made to the Agreement:

     1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the
following language at the end thereof:

     "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 2, no "Change of
     Control" or "Change in Control" shall be deemed to have occurred in
     connection with transactions under the Retirement Systems of Alabama
     investment agreement dated September 26, 2002, as amended, or in connection
     with the Company's emergence from bankruptcy."

     2. Section 5(d)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended by substituting ";
or" for ", and" at the end of Section 5(d)(i)(4), and by the addition of the
following as Section 4(d)(i)(5):

<PAGE>

     "(5) any relocation of the Company's corporate headquarters outside of the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; and".

     3. Section 5(d)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended by substituting ";
or" for the period at the end of Section 5(d)(ii)(5), and by the addition of the
following as Section 5(d)(ii)(6):

     "(6) any relocation of the Company's corporate headquarters outside of the
          Washington, D.C. metropolitan area."

                                       EXECUTIVE


                                       /s/ Alan W. Crellin
                                       Alan W. Crellin

                                       US AIRWAYS, INC.

                                       By /s/ Jennifer C. McGarey
                                         Name: Jennifer C. McGarey
                                         Title: Vice President, Deputy General
                                                Counsel & Secretary