alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.5



 Exhibit 4.5 

	
	 






  
 NUMBER SHARES 
 Presidio, inc. 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 

C O M M O N S T O C K CUSIP 74102M 10 3 
 This CerTifies ThaT: SPECIMEN 
 is The owner of

 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF $0.01 PAR VALUE EACH OF 

Presidio, inc. 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate duly 

endorsed or assigned. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware,
and to the 
 Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation, as now or hereafter amended.

 This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent. 

WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 

COUNTERSIGNED: 
 BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, INC. 

DATED: 1717 ARCH ST., STE. 1300, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 

TRANSFER AGENT 
 BY: 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 

SECRETARY 
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 







 



 
  
 The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 

TEN COM —as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT—.Custodian 

TEN ENT—as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) 

JT TEN —as joint tenants with right of under Uniform Gifts to Minors survivorship and not as tenants Act in common
(State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 

Shares 
 of the 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 

NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE Signature(s) Guaranteed OF
THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. 
 By

 The Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and
Loan Associations and Credit Unions with membership in an approved Signature Guarantee Medallion Program), pursuant to SEC Rule 17Ad-15. 
 THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY STOCKHOLDER, UPON REQUEST AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS, RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SHARES OF EACH
CLASS AND SERIES AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED, SO FAR AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, AND OF THE AUTHORITY, IF ANY, OF THE BOARD TO DIVIDE THE SHARES INTO CLASSES OR SERIES AND TO DETERMINE AND CHANGE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF
ANY CLASS OR SERIES. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT NAMED ON THIS CERTIFICATE. 
 COLUMBIA PRINTING SERVICES, LLC—www.stockinformation.com
n/30/201 1 12:09 FAX 2024935142 FAA - QMS ^001/00 2 

— K t I OPERATIONS 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ?OII NOV 30 p ]: 9^ 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

Continental Airlines Inc. 

Respondent 

CP11SW000O 

CP11SW00OO 

CP11SW0OOO 

CP11SW0000 

FAA 2011-0776 

FAA 2011-0777 

FAA 2011-0778 

FAA 2011-0774 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Administrator and Respondent have entered into an agreement to settle the 

above styled matters; therefore the Administrator withdrav\/s his complaint. 

Respectfully submitted, 

David Donnell 

Southwest Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Tim Duff '^ 

Attorney 

(817)222-5099 

RECEIVED 

MOV 1 6 2011 

HEARING DOCKET 
11/30/2011 12;08 FAX 2024935142 FAA DHS ^oo i 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 7*" day of November, 2011, the original and one copy, 

respectively, of the foregoing document were sent via facsimile and certified return receipt 

requested to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington. DC 20591 

Altn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC -430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000\ 

FAX: 202-493-5123 

Jonathan T. Linde 

Senior Counsel - Regulatory 

United Airlines and 

Continental Airlines, Inc. 

77 W. Wacker Drive - IS*" Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601 

FAX: 312-997-8103 

Thomas Newton Boiling, Respondent's Counsel 

Managing Attorney, Regulatory Affairs 

United Airlines and 

Continental Airlines, inc. 

77 W. Wacker Drive - 16'" Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601 

FAX: 312-997-8103 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin, 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings. M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room 312-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Aileen C.^yaia, Program Analyst 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

P: 817-222-5087 

F: 817-222-5092 

Dated: November 7. 2011
§ 952.7 Notice of docketing and answer. ( a ) Upon receipt of a complaint filed against a Respondent whose mailing address is within the United States, the Recorder shall issue a notice of docketing and answer due date stating the date for an answer which shall not exceed 30 days from the service of the complaint and a reference to the effect of failure to file an answer and/or the assessment of civil penalties authorized by 39 U.S.C. 3012. (See §§ 952.10 and 952.11).
( b ) Upon receipt of a complaint filed against a Respondent whose mailing address is not within the United States, the Judicial Officer shall review the complaint and any supporting information and determine whether a prima facie showing has been made that Respondent is engaged in conduct warranting issuance of the orders authorized by 39 U.S.C. 3005(a). Where the Judicial Officer concludes that a prima facie showing has not been made the complaint shall be dismissed. Where the Judicial Officer concludes that a prima facie showing has been made, he or she shall issue a tentative decision and orders which: ( 1 ) Set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) Direct Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in conduct warranting the issuance of an order authorized by 39 U.S.C. 3005(a);
( 3 ) Direct that postal money orders drawn to the order of Respondent not be paid for 45 days from date of the tentative decision;
( 4 ) Direct that mail addressed to Respondent be forwarded to designated facilities and detained for 45 days from the date of the tentative decision subject to survey by Respondent and release of mail unrelated to the matter complained of;
( 5 ) Tentatively assess such civil penalties as he considers appropriate under applicable law; and
( 6 ) Provide that unless Respondent presents, within 45 days of the date of the tentative decision, good cause for dismissing the complaint, or modifying the tentative decision and orders, the tentative decision and orders shall become final.
( c ) The Judicial Officer may, upon a showing of good cause made within 45 days of the date of the tentative decision, hold a hearing to determine whether the tentative decision and orders should be revoked, modified, or allowed to become final. Should a hearing be granted, the Judicial Officer may modify the tentative decision and orders to extend the time during which the payment of postal money orders payable to Respondent is suspended and mail addressed to Respondent is detained.
### From: 

### Slocum, Benjamin [mailto:benjamin.slocum@usairways.coml 

### Sent: Tuesday, April17, 2012 10:32 AM · To: Jaffe, Darren (OST) 

### Subject: PSAAirlines Docket OST-2004-18811 (U.S.-Turks &

### Caicos)DarrenThis email will confirm thatthe services being applied for by PSAAirlines, Inc. ("PSA") in its Application for Renewal of an Exemption, in the above-referenced docket, will all be conducted doing business as US Airways Express. Myapologies for anyconfusion. Please let me know if you have anyadditional questions. Ben Ben Slocum Directorand Assistant General Counsel US Airways, Inc. Direct: 202-326-5154
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARICELA RAMIREZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MELANIE PARKER, M.D.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 16-35131 

16-35367 

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01772-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

In these consolidated appeals, Marciela Ramirez appeals pro se from the 

district court’s orders denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion and her motion for an 

extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision 

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

FILED

OCT 4 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35131 

858 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (motion for extension of time to file a notice of 

appeal); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 

(9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration under Rule 60). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s Rule 60 

motions for reconsideration because Ramirez failed to demonstrate any basis for 

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for 

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s untimely 

motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because Ramirez failed to 

demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) 

(district court may extend time for filing notice of appeal upon showing of good 

cause or excusable neglect); Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858-60 (discussing excusable 

neglect and explaining that this court must affirm unless there is a definite and firm 

conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment); Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of 

procedure.”).

We reject as without merit Ramirez’s contention that the district court

discriminated against her on the basis of race.
3 16-35131 

We do not consider Ramirez’s contentions regarding the district court’s 

orders entered before January 25, 2016, because they are not within the scope of 

this appeal.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
§ 334.1340 Pacific Ocean, Hawaii; danger zones. ( a ) *Danger zones* — ( 1 ) *Aerial bombing and strafing target surrounding Kaula Rock, Hawaii.* The waters within a circular area with a radius of three (3) miles having its center on Kaula Rock at latitude 21°39′30′′, longitude 160°32′30′′.
( 2 ) *Submerged unexploded ordnance danger zone, Kahoolawe Island, Hawaii.* The waters adjacent to Kahoolawe Island within the area encompassed by the following coordinates beginning at latitude 20°37′30′′, longitude 156°32′48′′; thence to latitude 20°34′48′′, longitude 156°30′24′′; thence to latitude 20°28′54′′, longitude 156°30′30′′; thence to latitude 20°28′06′′, longitude 156°41′48′′; thence to latitude 20°30′30′′, longitude 156°44′12′′; thence to latitude 20°33′12′′, longitude 156°44′30′′; thence to latitude 20°37′30′′, longitude 156°36′24′′; thence to the beginning coordinates.
( b ) *The regulations.* No person, vessel or other craft shall enter or remain in any of the areas at any time except as authorized by the enforcing agency.
( c ) *Enforcing agency.* The regulations in this section shall be enforced by Commander, Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-5020, and such agencies as he/she may designated.
[20 FR 4129, June 11, 1955, as amended at 25 FR 4749, May 28, 1960; 31 FR 14255, Nov. 4, 1966; 45 FR 57126, Aug. 27, 1980. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, and amended at 58 FR 53427, Oct. 15, 1993; 61 FR 34733, July 3, 1996; 62 FR 17559, Apr. 10, 1997]
#### Hensley v. Commonwealth.

(Decided October 3, 1916.)

Appeal from Powell Circuit Court.

Intoxicating Liquors — Judicial Notice — Evidence.—Where the local option law has been put in force by a vote of the people of the county held under the general local option law, that fact must be shown in order to convict; but, where the sale of intoxicating liquors is forbidden by a special Act of the legislature applicable to the territory in question, the courts of the Commonwealth will take notice of the existence of such special Act and the territory to which it is applicable.

A. T. STEWAET for appellant.

M. M. LOGAN, Attorney General, and D. O. MYATT, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Chiep Justice Miller

Reversing.

Dock Hensley appeals from a judgment of the Powell circuit court finding him guilty of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $100.00 and imprisonment in the county jail for 40 days.

At the conclusion of all the evidence the appellant moved the court to peremptorily instruct the jury to find him not guilty. This motion was based upon the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Powell county was local option territory. As there was no proof upon the subject, the appellant’s motion for a peremptory instruction should have been sustained, unless Powell county was made local option territory by a local or special Act of the General Assembly.

*317It is well settled that where the local option law has been pnt in ferce by a vote of the people of the county held under the general local option law, that fact must be shown in order to convict; but, where the sale of intoxicating liquors is forbidden by a special Act of the legislature applicable to the territory in question, the courts of the Commonwealth will take notice of the existence of such special Act and the territory to which it is applicable. Crigler v. Commonwealth, 120 Ky. 512; Ball v. Commonwealth, 30 Ky. L. R. 600, 99. S. W. 326.

We have been referred to no special charter or Act making Powell county dry territory; on the contrary, the Attorney General concedes that no such special Act exists.

The other questions suggested in the appellant’s brief are not decided.

Judgment reversed.
(LOGO) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
650 Third Avenue South
Park Building
Suite 1300
Minneapolis MN 55402-4333
Telephone (612) 596 6000
Facsimile (612) 373 7160


Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Stockholder
of GMAC Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's  assertion about GMAC Mortgage Corporation and its
subsidiaries'  (the "Company")  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards
("standards")  identified  in the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of  America's
Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for
the year  ended  December  31,  1999  included  in the  accompanying  management
assertion  (see  Exhibit  I).   Management  is  responsible  for  the  Company's
compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based
on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis for
our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not provide a legal  determination  on the
Company's compliance with the standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  standards  as of and for the year  ended  December  31,  1999 is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
March 8,2000
#### § 102-75.835 When must DOT notify the disposal agency that an eligible applicant is interested in acquiring the property?

DOT must notify the disposal agency within 30 calendar days after the date of the surplus notice if there is an eligible applicant interested in acquiring the property. After that 30-calendar day period expires, DOT then has another 30 calendar days to review and approve applications and notify the disposal agency of the need for the property. If no application is approved, then DOT must notify the disposal agency that there is no requirement for the property within the same 30-calendar day period allotted for review and approval.
#### § 102-40.15 Who must comply with the provisions in this part?

All executive agencies must comply with the provisions of this part unless authorized by specific, separate statutory authority to do otherwise. Also, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 549(b)(1), state agencies for surplus property (SASPs) must comply with the provisions of this part related to the donation of surplus property with special handling requirements. Legislative and judicial agencies are encouraged to follow these provisions.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00141 - CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K .K., A CHILD

---------- FROM THE 360TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 360

- 474497

- 10

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Pro se Appellant J.K. attempts to “appeal the [trial] court’s decision at the April 17, 2015 hearing” in a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship. On April 27, 2015, we notified the parties of our concern that we have no jurisdiction in this matter because it appear ed that there was no final judgment or signed order subject to appeal ; we also informed t h e m that t h e notice of appeal was

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 premature. 2 We indicated that this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if a party did not furnish this court with a signed copy of the order Appellant seeks to appeal by May 18, 2015. 3 We have received no response

. Meanwhile, we have received information that on April 17, 20 15, a n associate judge signed a “Communications Order” and an “Associate Judge’s Report for Additional Temporary Orders.” We have no way of knowing if one or both of those documents form the basis of Appellant’s appeal. Further, we have received informat ion that the trial court cause has been consolidated with a more recently filed trial court cause bearing the same style, wh ich also remains pending below. The time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case runs from a signed judgment, not an oral rendition. 4 Further, temporary orders in suits affecting the parent
- child relationship are not appealable. 5 Accordingly, even if the April 17 ,

2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a), 27.1(a)

. 3 See Stewart v. Stewart , No. 0 2

- 09

- 00 285

- CV, 2009 WL 3416553, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 22, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. 4 See id. ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

5 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (West 2014); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2015 ) (listing types of appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har

– Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that generally an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment and that a judgment is final and appeal able if it disposes of all parties and all issues); In re J.W.L. , 291 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (reiterating that temporary orders in family law cases are not appealable).3 2015 decision Appellant compl ains of has been reduced to writing and signed by the trial judge , it is not appea lable. W e therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 6

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: August 6, 2015

6 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2( f).
Beckstead and Watts, LLP
Certified Public Accountants
                                          3340 Wynn Road, Suite B
                                              Las Vegas, NV 89102
                                                     702.257.1984
                                               702.362.0540 (fax)





To Whom It May Concern:

We  have  issued our report dated February 6, 2003,  accompanying
the  financial  statements of NMxS.com, Inc. and Subsidiaries  on
Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2001.   We  hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report  on  the
Form 10KSB/A of NMxS.com, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

Signed,


/s/ Beckstead and Watts, LLP
----------------------------
February 6, 2003
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 153-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2024 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 153-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2024 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 153-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2024 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32


                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Roger S. Marcus, Chief
Executive Officer, and Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer, of American
Biltrite Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge: The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2006 of the Company as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  November 13, 2006
                                                  /s/ Roger S. Marcus
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Roger S. Marcus
                                                  Chief Executive Officer



                                                  /s/ Howard N. Feist III
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Howard N. Feist III
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
§ 102-74.380 What is the policy concerning the preservation of property? All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from— ( a ) Improperly disposing of rubbish on property;
( b ) Willfully destroying or damaging property;
( c ) Stealing property;
( d ) Creating any hazard on property to persons or things; or
( e ) Throwing articles of any kind from or at a building or climbing upon statues, fountains or any part of the building.