alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
efsh_ex41.htm

EXHIBIT 4.1

 

Formed Under the Laws of the State of Delaware

 

	
Certificate No. **      **
	
 
	
**      ** Common Shares



 

1847 HOLDINGS LLC

500,000,000 Common Shares Authorized

 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT _____________________________________ is the owner of _________________________ Common Shares of 1847 HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), with such rights and privileges as are set forth in the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Company, dated January __, 2018, as it may be amended from time to time (the “Agreement”).

 

THE COMMON SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS SECOND AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION, AND ARE BEING OFFERED AND SOLD IN RELIANCE ON EXEMPTIONS FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND SUCH LAWS. THE COMMON SHARES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, BY ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION OR BY ANY OTHER REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS UNLAWFUL.

 

THE COMMON SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT. EVERY HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE, BY HOLDING AND RECEIVING THE SAME, AGREES WITH THE COMPANY TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. THE AGREEMENT WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE COMPANY TO THE HOLDER HEREOF UPON REQUEST WITHOUT CHARGE.

 

In Witness Whereof, the Company has caused this Certificate to be signed as of this ____ day of _______________, A.D. ______.

 

 


				
	
 
	
 
	
Chef Executive Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0823. MICHAEL JOSEPH HAUF v. NATALYA VIKTOROVNA HAUF.

Michael Joseph Hauf filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s “Final

Judgment and Decree of Divorce.” However, appeals from “judgments or orders in

divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases” must be made by application

for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). “[C]ompliance with the

discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322,

332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991). Michael Hauf’s failure to follow the discretionary

appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal. Accordingly, this

appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 06, 2019

12/06/2019
BURN THE RIGHT WOOD, THE RIGHT WAY, IN THE RIGHT WOOD-BURNING APPLIANCE

 id you know that by changing 

the way you burn wood you can 

save money, reduce air pollution 

and protect your health?

Here are a few simple tips to make 

your fi re burn hotter, keep your 

wallet fatter and keep your local 

air cleaner and healthier.

Season all fi rewood. All fi rewood should be 

split, securely covered or stored, and aged 

for at least six months. Seasoned wood burns 

hotter, cuts fuel consumption and reduces the 

amount of smoke your appliance produces.

Choose the right fi rewood. Hardwoods are 

the best. Never burn trash or treated wood 

which can emit toxic air pollutants.

Clean ashes from your wood-burning 

appliance. Excess ashes can clog the air 

intake vents reducing effi ciency. Be sure to 

dispose of ashes in a metal container away 

from the house or any fl ammable material to 

reduce the risk of fi re. 

Don’t let the fi re smolder. Many people think 

they should let a fi re smolder overnight. But 

reducing the air supply does little for heating 

and increases air pollution.

Keep your chimney clean. A clean chimney 

provides good draft for your wood-burning 

appliance and reduces the risk of a chimney 

fi re. Have a certifi ed professional inspect your 

chimney once a year.

Upgrade to cleaner equipment. EPAcertifi ed wood stoves and fi replace inserts 

burn cleaner and burn wood more effi ciently 

emitting less particle pollution than older 

models.

Be a good neighbor. Follow best practices 

for burning wood. Always remember to 

comply with state and local codes and check 

your local air quality forecast.

For more information on how to burn wise, go to www.epa.gov/burnwise

Start it right. Use only clean newspaper 

or dry kindling to start a fi re. Never use 

gasoline, kerosene, charcoal starter, or a 

propane torch.

Follow instructions. Operate your woodburning appliance according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions and follow all 

maintenance procedures.

Size matters. Choose the right-sized 

appliance for your needs. If your woodburning appliance is too big for your room or 

house, the fuel will smolder and create more air 

pollution.

Burn Wise

D

Program of U.S. EPA

EPA-456/F-09-004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License; Edge Technologies, 
Inc.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Edge Technologies, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, 
exclusive license in the United States to practice the Government-owned 
inventions described in: U.S. Patent Number 4,906,879 entitled Terbium-
Dysprosium Magnetostrictive High Power Transducers
    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has 60 days 
from the date of this notice to file written objections along with 
supporting evidence, if any. Written objections are to be filed with 
the Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Code 004, 9500 
MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, Maryland 20817-5700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dick Bloomquist, Director, 
Technology Transfer, Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, 
Code 0117, 9500 MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, Maryland 20817-5700, 
telephone (301) 227-4299.

    Dated: November 4, 1997.
Darse E. Crandall,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-29793 Filed 11-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1762 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to submit to Congress a report 

on unfair or deceptive acts or practices targeted at Indian Tribes or 

members of Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2021 

Mr. MULLIN (for himself and Mr. O’HALLERAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to submit to Congress a report on unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

targeted at Indian Tribes or members of Indian Tribes, 

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 ‘‘Protecting Indian 

5 Tribes from Scams Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1762 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTING INDIAN TRIBES FROM UNFAIR OR DE2 CEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES. 

3 (a) FTC REPORT ON UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS

4 OR PRACTICES TARGETING INDIAN TRIBES.—Not later 

5 than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

6 and after consultation with Indian Tribes, the Commission 

7 shall make publicly available on the website of the Com8 mission and submit to the Committee on Energy and Com9 merce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

10 on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate 

11 a report on unfair or deceptive acts or practices targeted 

12 at Indian Tribes or members of Indian Tribes, including— 

13 (1) a description of the types of unfair or de14 ceptive acts or practices identified by the Commis15 sion as being targeted at Indian Tribes or members 

16 of Indian Tribes; 

17 (2) a description of the consumer education ac18 tivities of the Commission with respect to such acts 

19 or practices; 

20 (3) a description of the efforts of the Commis21 sion to collaborate with Indian Tribes to prevent 

22 such acts or practices or to pursue persons using 

23 such acts or practices; 

24 (4) a summary of the enforcement actions 

25 taken by the Commission related to such acts or 

26 practices; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1762 IH

1 (5) any recommendations for legislation to pre2 vent such acts or practices. 

3 (b) INCREASING AWARENESS OF UNFAIR OR DECEP4 TIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES TARGETING INDIAN TRIBES.— 

5 Not later than 6 months after the date of the submission 

6 of the report required by subsection (a), the Commission 

7 shall update the website of the Commission to include in8 formation for consumers and businesses on identifying 

9 and avoiding unfair or deceptive acts or practices targeted 

10 at Indian Tribes or members of Indian Tribes. 

11 (c) COMMISSION DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

12 ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Trade Commission. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 33.1














REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA




FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES






Entergy Texas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:






(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Transition Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), 4(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);






(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;






(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2012, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and






(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2012, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.






Date:  March 28, 2013






Entergy Texas, Inc., as servicer




By: /s/   Alyson M. Mount


Name:   Alyson M. Mount


Title:     Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
#### Don ROSSELET and Sally Rosselet, his wife, Appellants, v. I & H REALTY CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-559.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 17, 1973.

Neil Chonin, Miami, for appellants.

Edward N. Moore, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSÓN, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 50.
**           Exhibit (10)(a)**

**2006      RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT**

**THIS      RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT**
**March,      2006**

**COACHMEN      INDUSTRIES, INC.,**

*A.*
*“Change      in Control”*

*B.*
*“Code”      *

*C.*
*“Committee”      *

*D.*
*“Company      Stock” *

*E.*
*“Passive      Investor” *

*F.*
*“Performance      Measurement Period”*

*G.*
*“Performance      Target” *

*H.*
*“Pre-Tax      Profit”*

*I.*
*“Primary      Performance Group” *

* *

*J.*
*“Restricted      Stock Award” *

*If      the Participant decides to make *
*a      Section 83(b) *

*election,      it is irrevocable and the Participant will not be able to take a deduction      if      the Restricted Stock Award does not vest or the Shares *

*are      *
*subsequently      forfeited or the value of the Shares declines.*

----

----

**Appendix      A**

----

**Appendix      B**

**Election      To Withhold Shares From Restricted Stock Award**

**to      Satisfy Withholding Obligations**

*Wall      Street Journal, Midwest Edition*

----

**EXHIBIT      A TO 2006 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT**

----

|                                                                                                                                                                              |         |                                                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Executive                  Officer’s Name and Title**                                                                                                                     |    | **Maximum Number of****Restricted                  Shares****Awarded** |
| Claire                  C. SkinnerChairman                  of the Board and Chief Executive Officer                                                                              |    | 12,000                                                                           |
|                                                                                                                                                                              |         |
| Michael                  R. Terlep, Jr.President,                  Coachmen RV Group, and President,Coachmen                  Recreational Vehicles Company, LLC                  |    | 12,000                                                                           |
|                                                                                                                                                                              |         |
| Richard                  M. LaversExecutive                  Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary,Chief                  Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer |    | 12,000                                                                           |

----

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Annual Report of Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. (“Advantage”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kelly I. Drader, Chief Financial Officer of Advantage, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Advantage.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 26, 2013 | /s/ Kelly I. Drader    
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Kelly I. Drader        
|                     | Chief Financial Officer
Paul M. Newcomer

pmn@novaralaw.com

August 26, 2021 

Danielle Norris, MPRA Director 

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20220 

Re: Arizona Bricklayers’ Pension Trust Fund

Application for Suspension of Benefits Under the Multiemployer 

Pension Reform Act of 2014 

Withdrawal of Application 

Dear Ms. Norris: 

On September 29, 2020, the Arizona Bricklayers Pension Trust Fund (the plan), filed its 

Application for Approval of Suspension of Benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 

2014 (MPRA) with Treasury. Treasury acknowledged that the filing was complete as of that date and, 

with the exception of a stay period agreed by the parties, we understand that the application has been 

under review from that time. As part of the proposed suspension, the plan filed an application with 

PBGC for an order permitting partition. 

The enactment on March 11, 2021 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP), and the 

publication on July 12, 2021, of PBGC’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) implementing Subtitle H of ARP, 

has required the Trustees of the plan to consider whether availability of special financial assistance 

under the IFR presented a prudent alternative to the proposed partition/suspension.

By way of formal action as authorized by the plan’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust the 

Trustees have determined that withdrawing the Application to Treasury is in the best interest of all of 

the plan’s participants and beneficiaries, and have authorized us to advise you of that decision. We 

have notified PBGC of the withdrawal of the plan’s partition application. If there is any further 

information that you require, please let us know. On behalf of the Trustees, we thank Treasury for their 

attention to and assistance with this matter.

Very truly yours,

NOVARA TESIJA CATENACCI McDONALD & BAAS, PLLC

/s/Paul M. Newcomer

Paul M. Newcomer

PMN/mak
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

_________________________________________ 

 ) 

SHARON ANZALDI, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civil Action No. 14-0658 (ESH) 

 ) 

FRANCISCO QUINTANT, ) 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

_________________________________________ ) 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Sharon Anzaldi’s petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Apr. 14, 2014 [ECF 

No. 1].) Petitioner is presently in federal custody at the Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) in 

Lexington, Kentucky, pursuant to a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois. (Pet. at 1; see also Judgment, United States v. Anzaldi, No. 1:11-cr-00820-1, 

Jan. 15, 2014.) She names the warden of FMC Lexington as the respondent to her petition. 

 A habeas petition under § 2241 must be filed in the federal court with territorial 

jurisdiction over petitioner’s immediate custodian. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439, 124 

(2004). FMC Lexington and its warden are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

FMC Lexington, http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lex/ (last visited April 24, 2014) 

(identifying Eastern District of Kentucky as the judicial district encompassing FMC Lexington). 

Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s habeas petition. 
 -2-

 A court shall transfer a habeas petition to a court with proper territorial jurisdiction when 

such transfer is “in the interests of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see, e.g., Bailey v. Fulwood, 780 

F. Supp. 2d 20, 26-27 (D.D.C. 2011). As a transfer would avoid the inefficiency of dismissing 

this action and requiring petitioner to refile it, the Court finds it in the interest of justice to 

transfer this action to the proper court. See Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 601 F. Supp. 2d 303, 

306–07 (D.D.C. 2009) (a transfer is in the interest of justice where “it would be time-consuming 

and potentially costly” for a petitioner to refile his petition in the proper court). 

 Accordingly, the above-captioned case will be transferred to the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum 

Opinion. 

 /s/ 

 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE 

 United States District Judge 

Date: April 24, 2014
#### Robert EVANS v. Ronald TEMENTO, d/b/a Temento Boat Mart.

No. 4290.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1971.

deVerges & deVerges, Ed J. deVerges, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Arthur G. Kingsmill, Gretna, for defendant-appellant.

Before CHASEZ, STOULIG and BOU-TALL, JJ.

BOUTALL, Judge.

Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for precisely the sum of $100.00 representing a deposit required by defendant in connection with a proposed sale of a boat entered into between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant holds the $100.00 deposit and refuses to return it, although the sale is no longer possible. This suit is to recover the $100.00 so deposited. The Second Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff ordering the return of the $100.00, and from this judgment the defendant appeals to this court.

The appeal is taken under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:2562.11 which sets out the method of appeals from the Second Parish Court. The provisions of that law as to appeals in all civil cases is as follows:

> “(3) In all civil cases in which the amount involved exceeds $100, exclusive of interest, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

> (4) In all civil cases in which the. amount involved is less than $100.00, exclusive of interest, to the 24th Judicial District Court where the case shall be tried de novo.”

A consideration of these provisions plainly shows that there is no provision for a case in which the amount involved is exactly $100.00, exclusive of interest, and so the defendant has appealed to this court.

This court has no appellate jurisdiction of this case. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is set out in Article 7, Section 29 of the Constitution of Louisiana, which provides, among other things, that it applies to “ * * * all civil matters involving more than one hundred dollars, exclusive of interest, of which the district courts throughout the state have concurrent jurisdiction”. The jurisdiction of the district court is set out in Article 7, Section 36 of the Louisiana Constitution which provides for appellate jurisdiction * * * where the amount in dispute, or the value of the movable property involved does not exceed $100.00, exclusive of interest”. It *309is thus apparent that the jurisdiction lies in the district court and not in this court.

Under the provisions of Article 2162 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, if an appeal is taken to an appellate court which has no jurisdiction over it, the court may transfer the appeal to the proper court, upon such terms and conditions as it may prescribe. Lichtentag v. Bowens, 225 So.2d 101 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1969).

It is ordered that this appeal be and the same is hereby transferred to the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson for all further proceedings.

Appeal transferred.