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





Certificate
      No.   Incorporated under the Laws of
      the State of
  Delaware    Shares


XXX                                                                                                                                                     - XXX,XXX
-


CUSIP
65505 10 5





Noble
Medical Technologies, Inc.


20,000,000
AUTHORIZED SHARES  PAR VALUE $.0001 COMMON STOCK











This
Certifies That- Specimen-is the owner of





-
XXXXXXXXXX
(XXX,XXX)-___________________


shares
of Noble Medical Technologies, Inc. Common Stock





transferable
on the books of the Corporation by the holder in person or by duly authorized
Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.





Witness, the signatures of its duly
authorized officers.


Dated:





Corporate
Seal





Assistant
Secretary                                                President





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 and
regulations:





TEN
      COM   - as tenants in common
            UNIF
      TRANSFERS MIN ACT - _______ Custodian
_________


(Cust.)                      (Minor)


Under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
____________________


(State)


TEN
ENT    - as tenants by the entirety





JTWROS    -
as Joint tenants with right of survivorship





Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not on the above list





For
value received  hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto








(Please
insert social security number, I.D. Number of Transferee)











( Please print name and address of
transferee)























shares represented by this certificate and hereby do irrevocably
appoint





attorney to transfer the said
shares on the books of the corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises.





Dated











(Signature)
            (Second
      Signature, if applicable)











In
presence of


Page 2
#### Jeffrey M. LOUIS, DPM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, an executive department of the United States, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-35389.

D.C. No. CV-03-05534-FDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2005.

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

Before B. FLETCHER, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*669MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Jeffrey Louis appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims for disclosure of documents by the Department of Labor (“Department”) under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552.1

As the parties are familiar with the extensive factual and procedural background of this case, we need not recite it here in detail. We mention only that after oral argument, the Department moved to supplement the record with an updated, revised *Vaughn*index2 that indicates that several of the previously-withheld documents have now been produced, but that the Department still is withholding thirty-five documents under FOIA’s Exemption 5. We granted the Department’s motion, and, in an attempt to put an expeditious end to this litigation, we ordered the Department to submit the withheld documents to the court for in camera inspection. After conducting a thorough review of the submitted documents, we conclude that each has been properly withheld as attorney-client privileged and/or attorney work-product. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). We have also determined that there is no segregable, non-privileged information, and thus do not require redaction of the withheld documents. *Id.*§ 552(b). We see no need for further discovery into the Department’s search methodology. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. *See Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis,*80 F.3d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir.1996) (“We may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the rationale of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED IN PART.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. In this memorandum, we address only Louis’ FOIA claims. The Privacy Act claims are addressed in a separate published opinion.

2

. *See Vaughn v. Rosen,*484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C.Cir.1973).
From: brundagec@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:20:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Colleen Brundage

Pottsboro, TX 75076
From: ocollaugh@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:14:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

HHS following the lead of the immoral president, is attempting to negate the moral values set forth by

the founding fathers which has made America great.

It brings focus again to ages old struggle of mankind, good over evil, moral emparatives over immoral

imparatives.

Christ said, "Get thee behind me Satan." Immoral employees of the nation's leadership should subscribe

to the same thing, "Get thee behind me Satan."

Without moral support of the nation, your Satan like emparatives will fail.

Thank you

donkelly

Sincerely,

Don Kelly

Cornelius, OR 97113
From: Patricia Petiniot

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:13:25 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Patricia Petiniot
Toledo, Ohio
From: bry8082@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:40:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

K Fowler

Jefferson City, TN 37760
No. 67117.

protests 61/20730, etc. (New York).

#### S. Berger Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass halls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Harkovits, Inc.*v. *United, States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 324 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 324

    Honoring the life and accomplishments of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and 
extending the condolences of the House of Representatives to his family 
                     on the occasion of his death.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2007

   Ms. Carson (for herself and Mr. Loebsack) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Honoring the life and accomplishments of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and 
extending the condolences of the House of Representatives to his family 
                     on the occasion of his death.

Whereas Kurt Vonnegut Jr. passed away on April 11, 2007;
Whereas Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is regarded as the best American satirist since Mark 
        Twain;
Whereas Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was born on November 11, 1922 in Indianapolis, 
        Indiana, and his hometown gave him a basis for many of his stories and 
        novels;
Whereas 2007 is being observed as The Year of Kurt Vonnegut in his hometown;
Whereas Kurt Vonnegut Jr. served in the United States Army during World War II 
        and earned the Purple Heart;
Whereas Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was held as a prisoner of war in Dresden, Germany, and 
        witnessed the atrocities of war and hatred first hand;
Whereas Kurt Vonnegut Jr. taught at the prestigious University of Iowa Writers' 
        Workshop from 1965 to 1967 and received a fellowship from the Guggenheim 
        Foundation, which enabled him to return to Dresden;
Whereas his novel Slaughterhouse Five, based on his experiences in Dresden and 
        chronicling the horror of that place during World War II, is recognized 
        and acclaimed as one of the best novels of the 20th Century; and
Whereas Kurt Vonnegut was a humanist of great humor who used his writing to 
        explain the problems of the world and to open eyes to different 
        solutions to make the world a better place: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives extends its 
condolences to the family of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on the occasion of his 
death and urges the celebration of a great American lifetime spent 
educating, stimulating, and entertaining millions of readers.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pedro TABARES-RIVERA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30173.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 18, 2005.

James P. Hagarty, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Elizabeth Dahlstrom, Esq., Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington *&*Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The Supreme Court vacated our judgment entered October 28, 2004, and re*681manded for further consideration in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Tabares-Rivera’s Sixth Amendment challenge to his sentencing enhancement, based on a prior aggravated felony, remains foreclosed after *Booker. See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, No. 03-*30387, 2005 WL 1560269, *8 n. 8 (9th Cir. July 5, 2005) (explaining that a district judge’s enhancing a sentence based on the fact of a prior conviction does not raise any Sixth Amendment problems).

Because Tabares-Rivera was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, id.,*at *9 (extending Ameline’s limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional *Booker*error).

REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: jtingle51@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:04:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

James M. Tingle, Jr.

Lawrenceville, GA 30045
From: gltandwlt@primemail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:17:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Wanda Triplett

Olathe, KS 66062