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

[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

 
                         SMALL FARM TAX BURDENS
=====================================================================

                              FIELD HEARING

                               before the
                        
                       COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

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

                       COLUMBIA, MO, AUGUST 10, 1999

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

                             Serial No. 106-28

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-374                         WASHINGTON : 1999

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60374.057


```
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

7 June 2018 ([\*](#Footnote*))

(Removal from the Register)

In Case C‐675/16 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 29 December 2016,

**Guccio Gucci SpA,** established in Florence (Italy), represented by P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, avvocati,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

**European Union Intellectual Property Office****(EUIPO),** represented by S. Hanne, acting as Agent,

defendant at first instance,

**Guess ? IP Holder LP,** established in Los Angeles (United States of America), represented by D. McFarland, Barrister,

intervener at first instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, P. Mengozzi,

makes the following

**Order**

1        By a document lodged via e-Curia on 16 May 2018, Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP informed the Court that they had reached an agreement on the amicable settlement of the dispute giving rise to the present case, in which it had been agreed that each party would bear its own costs and, therefore, that it was no longer necessary to rule on the appeal of Guccio Gucci SpA. That letter must be interpreted as including a request on the part of Guccio Gucci SpA to discontinue the proceedings, submitted in accordance with Article 148 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeals by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules, which that party’s representative confirmed in a subsequent communication.

2        By a document lodged via e-Curia on 23 May 2018, the European Union Intellectual Property Office informed the Court that it had no objections to the proceedings being brought to an end, while requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs.

3        Under Article 141(1) of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 184(1) thereof, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s observations on the discontinuance. In addition, Article 141(3) of those rules provides that, where the parties have come to an agreement on costs, the decision as to costs is to be in accordance with that agreement.

4        Since the European Union Intellectual Property Office confined itself, in its observations, to requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs and no other party has sought that that party be ordered to pay the costs, it must be held that the European Union Intellectual Property Office is to bear its own costs.

5        In accordance with the agreement reached between Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP, both those parties are to bear their own costs.

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1.      **Case C**‐**675/16 P is removed from the Register of the Court.**

2.      **The parties are to bear their own costs.**

Luxembourg, 7 June 2018.

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registrar | | President |

---

[\*](#Footref*) Language of the case: English.
No. 53467.

protests 147629-K (A) and 147630-K (A) (New York).

#### Frederick Miller *v.*United States,

.Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2017038EN.01001701.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/17

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-220/13, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

(Case C-623/16 P)

(2017/C 038/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, D. Grespan, F. Tomat, acting as agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, Italian Republic

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it declares the proceedings at first instance admissible for the purpose of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it declares the proceedings at first instance admissible for the purpose of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU;

| — | declare the action at first instance inadmissible for the purpose of the second and last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and consequently dismiss it in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action at first instance inadmissible for the purpose of the second and last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and consequently dismiss it in its entirety;

| — | order Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By a single plea in law, divided into three parts, the Commission claims that the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU was misinterpreted and misapplied, in that the General Court ruled that the applicant’s action at first instance was admissible on the basis of that provision. In particular, the General Court erred in law by finding that the contested act amounted to a regulatory act which was of direct concern to the applicant at first instance and did not entail implementing measures in respect of the applicant itself.

---
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 6-2 Filed 06/03/2002 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

May 29, 1963

No. 67781.

#### Barnett Customs Brokers, Inc., of California *v.*United States,

protest 62/10598 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM HAMMOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-110) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: In 1995, William M. Hammond was convicted of five counts related to attempting to blow up an automated teller machine. Following his 1996 sentencing, counsel appealed the conviction. This court affirmed. United States v. Hammond , No. 96-4231 (4th Cir. Feb. 11, 1997) (unpublished). In November 2001, Hammond filed a notice of appeal from these convictions. He contends that he never received a copy of the appellate briefs or of a decision by this court; therefore, he believes that counsel did not pursue the appeal. This court has already exercised its jurisdiction to review the final decision of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), in ruling on Hammond’s direct appeal. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West 2000). Even if we had not, Hammond’s notice of appeal would be untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The appeal periods defined in Rule 4 are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION R E C EIVP D 

5'^Af •: 8 2011 

HEARING DOCKET 

vs. 

DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0069 

FAA Case Nos. 2010SO190256, 

2010SO190260 

Chief Judge Yoder 

J> 

O 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.214 and the Order of Chief Administrative Judge Establishing 

Procedures, dated April 25, 2011, the FAA hereby amends the Complaint in this case as follows. 

Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 are re-numbered as paragraphs 14, 15, and 16, respectively. 

Paragraphs 3-10 are replaced with the following: 

3. a. On or about February 28, 2010, Dean International operated civil aircraft 

N6348B,aCE-152. 

b. Dean International operated N6348B on March 1, 2010. 

c. Dean International operated N634B on April 22, 2010. 

4. a. Flight instruction was given during the February 28, 2010 operation of 

N6348B. 

ofN6348B. 

N6348B. 

b. Flight instruction was given during the February March 1, 2010 operation 

c. Flight instruction was given during the April 22, 2010 operation of 
11. Fhght instruction was given during this operation of N5276M. 

12. At the time of this operation, neither an annual nor 100-hour inspection had been 

completed on N5276M within the proceeding 100 hours of time in service. 

13. a. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 87-20-03 R2 is applicable to N5276M. 

b. AD 87-20-03 R2 requires an inspection every 100 hours of time in service. 

c. At the time of the May 8, 2010 operation, the inspection required by AD 

87-20-03 R2 had not been performed on N5276M in the proceeding 100 hours. 

d. At the time of the May 8, 2010 operation, N5276M did not meet the 

requirements of AD 87-20-03 R2. 

14. N5276M was not in an airworthy condition at the time of the May 8, 2010 

operation. 

The remainder of the complaint remains unchanged. 

Respectfully submitted this ^^ day of May, 2011. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attomey 

Office of the Regional Coimsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Amended Complaint was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail and Federal Express to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

one copy via certified mail and Federal Express to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail and regular mail to: 

Stuart Goldstein, Esq. 

Law Offices of Goldstein & Sordo 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

)NNA E. STANLEY 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

MAY 2 5 201] 

Dated
##### 



AMENDED AND RESTATED
SEVERANCE AND CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
 Amended and Restated Severance and Change in Control Agreement Agreement Effective Date Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Company Stephen T.
Worland, Ph.D. Executive Parties Party
 Recitals
 Whereas
 Whereas
 Whereas
 Now, Therefore ,
 Agreement
 1. Employment.
 1.1 Loyalty; At Will Employment.
 1.2 Termination of Obligations.
 1.




---



##### 



1.3
 2. Definitions.
  2.1 Cause.  Cause 
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (iv) Proprietary
Information and Inventions Agreement
 2.2 Change in Control. Change in Control
 (i)
 2.




---



##### 



(ii)
 (iii)
 2.3 Complete Disability.  Complete Disability   Complete
Disability 
 2.4 Good Reason.  Good Reason 
 3.




---



##### 



(i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (iv)
 2.5 Integration
 3. Compensation Upon
Termination.
 3.1 Death Or Complete Disability.
 3.2 With Cause or Without Good Reason.
 3.3 Without Cause or for Good Reason. Release
 4.




---



##### 



(i) Base Salary
 (ii) COBRA provided, however,
 (iii)
 (iv)
 3.4 Additional Change in Control Related Severance Benefits
 5.




---



##### 



(i) Bonus Payment 100% Bonus Opportunity
Amount
 (ii)
 4. Change in Control Related Benefit
 4.1
 5. Tax Compliance
 5.1 Application of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.
 5.2 Parachute Payment. Payment Excise Tax Reduced Amount
 6.




---



##### 



provided, however,
   6. Company Property.
 7. Other Terminations.
 7.




---



##### 



8. Acknowledgement.
 9. General.
 In Witness Whereof
 Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc.By:
    Douglas E. Williams, Ph.D.Chairman, Compensation Committee  Executive:/s/ Stephen WorlandStephen T. Worland  8.




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
RELEASE AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS
 Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Company Release and Waiver
 ADEA
 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not
know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known
by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
 9.




---



##### 



Date: __________________
    By: 10.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>         0001051488
<NAME>        FIRST DELTAVISION, INC.

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            30537
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                      (30537)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1078)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT RAY FERGUSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. DAVID AGLER, Dr. ; MURRAY YOUNG, Dr., Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 35890 D.C. No. 1:15

- cv - 00073

- EJL

- CWD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 10 , 2018 ** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Idaho state prisoner Robert Ray Ferguson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment o n his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and his state

- law claim alleging negligence . We have jurisdicti on under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 35890

Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm

. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ferguson’s deliberate indifference claim because Ferguson failed to raise a genuine d ispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his medical conditions, including his hip pain. See id. at 1057

- 58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if s he or he knows of and dis regards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a mere difference in medical opinion or negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference)

. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ferguson’s negligence claim because Fergus on failed to introduce competent expert testimony showing that defendants “negligently failed to meet the applicable standard of health care practice.” Ballard v. Kerr , 378 P.3d 464, 476 (Idaho 2016) (citing Idaho Code § § 6

- 1012 , 6

- 1013 ); see also Easterling v. Kendall , 367 P.3d 1214, 1226 (Idaho 2016) ( setting forth elements of medical malpractice claim under Idaho law and stating that “the applicable standard of care and breach of that standard [must] be proved by expert testimony” )

. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief

, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal , including3 16

- 35890

Ferguson’s contention that the district court abuse d its discretion by striking exhibit s attached to the co mplaint

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

. We reject as unsupported by the record Ferguson’s contentions regarding the discovery schedule and the district court’s alleged failure to consider his evidence. Ferguson’s renewed mot ion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry
No. 38) is denied

. AFFIRM ED.
Form of Certificate Representing the 8.50% Non-Cumulative Conv. Preferred Stock



 Exhibit 4.2 
  

			
		  	PREFERRED STOCK
		
	 NUMBER
	  	SHARES    

  

					
	G [•]	  		  	[•]

 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 
 PREFERRED STOCK G 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS 
 OF THE STATE OF OHIO 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 CUSIP 316773 308                             
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF

 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE 8.50% NON-CUMULATIVE 
 PERPETUAL CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK SERIES G, 
 TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000)
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE PER SHARE, OF 
 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or 
 by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of
this certificate properly 
 endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by 









 the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures 
 of its duly authorized officers. 
 Dated: 
  

					
		 	FIFTH THIRD BANCORP	 	
			
	_____________	 	[CORPORATE SEAL]	 	_______________
			
	 Paul L. Reynolds
	 		 	Kevin T. Kabat
			
	SECRETARY	 	OHIO	 	PRESIDENT

 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY 
 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 BY:_____________________________ 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE










 The shares represented by this certificate an the other class or classes of shares, if any, which the Corporation is

 authorized to issue are subject to certain express terms contained in the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, a 
 copy of which shall be mailed by the Corporation to any shareholder without charge within five (5) days after receipt of a 
 written request therefor. Any such request should 
 be addressed to
the Secretary of the Corporation at 38 Fountain Square Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45263 
 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 
 TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties 
 JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of 
 survivorship and not as tenants in common 
  

											
	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - ____________________Custodian_________________________ under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act____________________

		  	(Cust)	  	(Minor)            	  		  		  	(State)

  

													
	UNIF TRF MIN ACT -  _______________ Custodian (until age _____)  ________________ under Uniform Transfers_________________________under
		  	(Cust)	  		  	(Minor)        	  		  		  	(State)

  

					
	 Uniform Transfers to Minors Act_______________________________
	 	
		 	                     (State)
	 	











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

 FOR VALUE REVEIVED,
                                 hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 
 IDENTIFYING
NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE