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


 


DESCRIPTION
OF REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES


REGISTERED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE


SECURITIES
ECHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


The
following description of our common stock is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject
to and qualified in its entirety by reference to our Certificate of Change to Articles of Incorporation (the “Articles of
Incorporation”) which is incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K .


 


Description
of Common Stock


 


Shares
Outstanding: The Company is authorized to issue up to 520,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the
“Common Stock”).


 


Dividends:
The holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends, if any, as may be declared from time to time by the Board of
Directors (the “Board”) in its discretion out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends.


 


Voting
Rights: Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. Holders of
shares of Common Stock do not have cumulative voting rights. This means a holder of a single share of Common Stock cannot cast
more than one vote for each position to be filled on the Board. It also means the holders of a majority of shares of Common Stock
entitled to vote in the election of directors can elect all directors standing for election and the holders of the remaining shares
will not be able to elect any directors.


 


Other
Rights: Holders of Common Stock have no pre-emptive rights, no conversion rights and there are no redemption provisions applicable
to our Common Stock.


 


Nevada
Anti-Takeover Law


 


Nevada
revised statutes sections 78.378 to 78.3793 provide state regulation over the acquisition of a controlling interest in certain
Nevada corporations unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the corporation provide that the provisions of these sections
do not apply. Our articles of incorporation and bylaws do not state that these provisions do not apply. The statute creates a
number of restrictions on the ability of a person or entity to acquire control of a Nevada company by setting down certain rules
of conduct and voting restrictions in any acquisition attempt, among other things. The statute is limited to corporations that
are organized in the state of Nevada and that have 200 or more stockholders, at least 100 of whom are stockholders of record and
residents of the state of Nevada; and does business in the state of Nevada directly or through an affiliated corporation. Because
of these conditions, the statute does not apply to our company.


 


Transfer
Agent and Registrar


 


Our
transfer agent and registrar is Equity Stock Transfer.


 


OTC
Market Listing


 


The
Common Stock is listed on OTC Markets under the ticker symbol “PUBC.”
# C_2022198EN.01001801.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/18

---

Appeal brought on 28 December 2021 by Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 October 2021 in Case T-510/20, Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM v European Commission

(Case C-831/21 P)

(2022/C 198/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Fachverband Spielhallen eV, LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The appellants claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-510/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-510/20;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants raise a single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.

The General Court dismissed the action in Case T-510/20 solely on the ground that the measure at issue was not capable of conferring an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, according to established EU case-law on tax matters, the criteria of advantage and selectivity must always be examined together. A finding of selectivity invariably presupposes the definition of a normal tax system. Without the definition of such a normal tax system, it is therefore impossible to determine whether there was an economic advantage. However, the General Court failed to examine the normal tax system and was therefore not entitled to conclude that the measure at issue did not confer an economic advantage. As a result, the contested decision is vitiated by a serious error of law.

---
# C_2022340EN.01003701.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)

(Case T-287/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SALATINA - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 340/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDELYN RUZON BAULA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74454

Agency No. A070-139-220

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Edelyn Ruzon Baula, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

OCT 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74454

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th

Cir. 2010), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Baula’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed more than a year after the BIA’s February 28,

2007, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and she failed to demonstrate that she was

eligible for an exception to the regulatory limitations based on changed

circumstances, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 992

(petitioner seeking to reopen based on changes in country conditions must “provide

evidence linked to her particular circumstances”). 

Baula’s contentions that the BIA did not consider her evidence and did not

adequately address her evidence or claims fail because Baula has not overcome the

presumption that the BIA reviewed the submitted evidence, see Larita-Martinez v.

INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000), and the BIA’s decision was supported

by the record and sufficiently reasoned for the court to review, see Ghaly v. INS, 58

F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995).

To the extent Baula challenges the agency’s previous orders, we lack

jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to those orders. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 
3 08-74454

We also lack jurisdiction to consider whether the BIA should have invoked

its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,

1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

Baula’s contention that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding is

unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Edward WENZEL, Appellant, v. Anna Marie WENZEL, now known as Anna Marie Turner, Appellee.

No. 69-542.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15017]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9040-3]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 07/02/2018 Through 07/06/2018

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20180153, Draft, USFS, CA, Omya Sentinel & Butterfield Quarries 
Expansion, Comment Period Ends: 08/28/2018, Contact: Scott Eliason 909-
382-2830
EIS No. 20180154, Final, USFWS, TX, Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District 
Habitat Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/13/2018, Contact: 
Marty Tuegel 505-248-6651
EIS No. 20180155, Draft, USACE, CO, Adams and Denver Counties Colorado 
General Investigation Study, Comment Period Ends: 08/28/2018, Contact: 
Jeffrey Bohlken 402-995-2671

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-15017 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Exhibit 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (No.
333-10249,  333-10251, and 333-21253) on Form S-8 of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.
of our report  dated  February 14, 1997,  relating to the  consolidated  balance
sheets of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, non-redeemable common
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended  December 31, 1996,  which report  appears in the December 31, 1996
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.


                                               /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                               --------------------------------
                                               KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Des Moines, Iowa
March 27, 1997
<PAGE>
# C_2022451EN.01001401.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/14

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2022 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-170/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Death of the applicant - Proceedings not resumed by the successors - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 451/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: L. Vétillard and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/55 of 22 January 2021 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2021 L 23, p. 22) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49 of 22 January 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 on restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2021 L 23, p. 5), in so far as those measures concern him and, second, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage which he has allegedly suffered as a result of those measures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
# C_2021088EN.01002101.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v TZ

(Case C-10/21)

(2021/C 88/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: TZ

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division Patrick Raymond Ty11 Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 44e*
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 16-1377 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

MARSHALL H. DION, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

ERRATA SHEET

 The opinion of this Court issued on June 8, 2017, is amended 

as follows: 

 On page 34, line 16, "See," is changed to "See,".
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                        25110939
<SECURITIES>                                  80180333
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8024500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      11820
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             135037326
<PP&E>                                         8374177
<DEPRECIATION>                               (3640509)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               170222976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         60849731
<BONDS>                                         180948
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         97283
<OTHER-SE>                                   109095014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 170222976
<SALES>                                       22017516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              22017516
<CGS>                                         16667736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 16667736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               21625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                8117661
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2757885
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5359776
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5359776
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1 


EXHIBIT 23.1 


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-
09393, No. 33-29900, No. 33-56585, No. 33-56587, 33-62083, and 333-
34571) of Galoob Toys, Inc. and its subsidiaries of our report dated 
January 31, 1998, appearing on page F-1 of Form 10-K.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
San Francisco, California
March 26, 1998
#### Joseph William MORGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. I-413.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 6, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000946822
<NAME>                              PREFERRED VOICE, INC.
<CURRENCY>                          US-DOLLARS


<S>
                                   <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      161,699
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               284,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            447,003
<PP&E>                                      557,237
<DEPRECIATION>                              (217,557)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,632,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       990,819
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    11,436
<OTHER-SE>                                  630,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,632,815
<SALES>                                     227,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            227,471
<CGS>                                       91,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               91,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          5,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (225,138)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             17,935
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (207,203)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.2)




</TABLE>
257 La. 457

#### UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Howard SINGLETON et al.

No. 51064.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1971.

In re: United Gas Pipe Line Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Martin. 241 So.2d 93.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we. find no error of Law.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 (adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ending December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended, and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



| |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
| |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
| |  |                |  | 
| |  | March 23, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ VICENTE WRIGHT                   
| |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Vicente Wright                       
| |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Catherine E. SMITH, Individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, Sharon E. Smith v. Robert CASTLE and Louise A. Keelen.

No. 62843.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Louise A. Keelen, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 361 So.2d 303.

Denied.