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


Exhibit 4.3


 


DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES


REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


As of the date of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.3 is a part, Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, being the Company’s shares of common stock (the “Common Shares”).


 


Description of Common Shares


 


The following description of our Common Shares is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in its entirety by reference to our Articles of Incorporation, as amended, and our Bylaws, as amended, each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.3 is a part.


 


Authorized Capital Shares


 


We are authorized to issue 750,000,000 common shares with a par value of $0.001 per share.


 


Voting Rights


 


Each outstanding share of common stock is entitled to one vote on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. There are no cumulative voting rights.


 


Dividend and Liquidation Rights


 


The holders of outstanding shares of common stock are entitled to receive dividends out of assets legally available therefore at such times and in such amounts as our board of directors may from time to time determine. Holders of common stock will share equally on a per share basis in any dividend declared by the board of directors. We have not paid any dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on such stock in the foreseeable future.


 


Upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of our Company, the holders of our common shares are entitled to share ratably in all net assets available for distribution to common stockholders after payment to creditors.


 


Other Rights and Preferences


 


Our common stock is not convertible or redeemable and has no preemptive, subscription or conversion rights.


 


Listing


 


The trading market for the Common Shares is the NYSE American under the trading symbol “UEC.”
#### Mrs. Shirley Mae Guidry GUILLORY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2202.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Jan. 18, 1968.

*113Dubuisson & Dubuisson, by William Brinkhaus, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lewis & Lewis, by Seth Lewis, Jr., Ope-lousas, for defendant-appellee.

Before LEAR, CULPEPPER, and HOOD, JJ.

LEAR, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the trial court which rejected plaintiffs’ demands for lack of proof. It was stipulated at the time of trial that the insurer of defendant, Wade H. Foret, is Great American Insurance Company rather than Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, as alleged in plaintiffs’ petition.

The record shows that an accident occurred at the intersection of Vine and Union Streets in the City of Opelousas, Louisiana. Immediately prior to the collision, plaintiff, Mrs. Guillory, was proceeding east on Vine Street and defendant, Mr. Foret, was proceeding south on Union Street. The intersection is controlled by a semaphore traffic light. There were no witnesses to the accident other than the two drivers. Each driver contends that the other ran the red light and caused the accident.

As correctly stated by the trial judge, plaintiff must prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. To meet this burden of proof, plaintiff called Mrs. Florence Lalonde, officer Leroy J. Scrantz and Captain Dennis Macip, the latter two having investigated the accident as city police officers. Neither officer could say much more than the fact that at the time of the accident it was raining and that plaintiff’s vehicle struck the right side of defendant’s vehicle. Both drivers claimed the right of way. There was no evidence of excessive speed. Mrs. Lalonde identified herself as the sister of Mrs. Guillory and her testimony concerned work she performed for Mrs. Guillory after the accident.

This court has stated on numerous occasions that a finding of fact by a trial judge will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. No such abuse of discretion is present in the instant case.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; appellant to pay all costs of the appeal.

Affirmed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 119

To restore the traditional observance of Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To restore the traditional observance of Memorial Day and

Veterans Day.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, (a) effective one year following the date of enact4 ment of this Act—

5 (1) section 6103(a) of title 5, United States

6 Code, is amended by striking out:

7 ‘‘Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.’’

8 and inserting in lieu thereof:

9 ‘‘Memorial Day, May 30.’’; and

10 (2) section 2(d) of the joint resolution entitled

11 ‘‘An Act to codify and emphasize existing rules and
2

S 119 IS

1 customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag

2 of the United States of America’’, approved June

3 22, 1942 (36 U.S.C. 174(d)), is amended by striking

4 out:

5 ‘‘Memorial Day (half-staff until noon), the last

6 Monday in May

7 and inserting in lieu thereof:

8 ‘‘Memorial Day (half-staff until noon), May

9 30;’’.

10 (b) The President is authorized and requested to

11 issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

12 States to observe Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days

13 for prayer and ceremonies showing respect for American

14 Veterans of wars and other military conflicts.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert Morris SKIPPER v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 61292.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Robert M. Skipper applying for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. Parish of Madison.

Denied.
AAM-13-008-E

November 5, 2012

 Exemption No. 10653

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-1084

Mr. Forest Kirst

Kirst Aviation

P.O. Box 73621

Fairbanks, AK 99707

Dear Mr. Kirst:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 2, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Kirst Aviation for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Kirst Aviation, which is 

operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under 

one drug and alcohol testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Kirst Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Kirst Aviation an exemption from 14 CFR

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Kirst Aviation, which is operating under separate 

parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, 

subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Kirst Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Kirst Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D.

Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of First Investors Financial Services, Inc., (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, BennieH. Duck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  Dec 13, 2006
|        | By:                     | /s/ Bennie H. Duck |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|   | Bennie H. Duck          |               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |               |
|        |                         |                    |        |  |

 

----
Whether deaf and |
dumb, blind, insane, |
idiotic, pauper, or
convict.

The Name of every Person whose usual place Profession, Occupation, or Trade

Puace or Birra. ®

\ } s «
of abode on the first day of June, 1850, was of each Male Person over 15 Naming the State, Territory,

order of visitation.

in the order of
visitation.

years of age. or Country.

Families numbered
Value of Real Estate

owned.
atried within the

within the year.

| Dwelling-houses
numbered in the
ttended School

we
M
Lh

|| RI

jt

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
#### John G. DISCON et al. v. SARAY, INC., et al.

No. 53200.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Ray Lamastus applying for writ of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus. 272 So.2d 439.

Writ refused. There has been no application for a rehearing and the judgment is not final.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the application should not be considered. There was no application for rehearing of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

BARHAM, J., concurs in the denial. The judgment is not final.

TATE, J., concurs in the denial. The Court of Appeal is correct.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.

CALOGERO, J., recused, took no part.
*?

a

[g < {J aes 2a) sls 2) 8 fai ai a] 5, 8] | 8 5 8] 3 3] 3] 4) 8 y one
ie ad | STE aonen Sees SESSeeEEsene fang,
a i mare EECHNVECEFECEEPEED rEERre “EEE i if
re ECP ECEERKEESPERCFEELEE i au
qT sores Ear EOTSEEEEPEor er teee:ECarenseie | Pa
ae) Ug GRRE eh Ss | re
ET lets asso atic SRRRERERRE ante
1 1 4) | Hig =e ae rari ated add | i | |
ij i a8 | |
eaHEE us BOGACECCRNE aid! ima
| HE , SiH
| L "he Hn t i! 1 | yas , a a id
) @ aL aul i =| BERe | i a Hf i
EE limes eta ete TT pie
82 2 | *|sihtis = Asti LEE sg Test a a i
t 5 : 2 nes ee sain | | ei i a
Wie 3] |S ae " mEEEE BECHER esti
fee z ee] | alt ay aaa a > Set Ht
[is 2 meal COT FOrcelenzne 2 — |}
ie 2] seas CMMEEAMBECELIORZETOPLAZEES COE : oe
Hee 5 |e Sree MME TIMEE ECL: ELEY ao BS 3 ia
: |
i : xg eS Milel eal delh|i) IPE) [BR HEL ge 3s TT fi it
| pieassisiiiiliiiiTiiiil se Seiittiaaya: ui
ie ff so3 8 naa
i d Pgs 23 :
, : its 25 HEE
rill SANTA TU a BU i
einer eto bs a
PE Ean TUTE UAT ep
| PSSe ge b jis
: o2> ©
: a <3] eo SeEerc i litt
IT TE HHRETcuTRT ETSI 22 ale SSE i
i a 2
(2 = = YPIGHI |
oo ILD SLEARELALESEEEL REIS . 2 SESE
(ES eR EC EERE ES EECCEEEEE Screen re
{EE SSeS Se Se se Scere

(pm)
a) aa ee

reseed EraReerECEErreeeeat at patedt

Ore w veo HET ARs ES } ‘

Leuven) ago | STOVE UTETUPLPrOTPTUTENTETPTOpIOPOTEE)

PERSONAL

iy i

Block Nos.

main Lg Ward of city 328 Unincorporated place
RELATION

ae
qi. | pas
Het ‘ j HT
) 14
it Cee
ae Daz REE EEE CEE HE /- pita
i iin fei
Jat ERE CEEH CEE cere] ,
' (om EATRUSERE SUSNHULEE CNUHREAUEISEREEEEE > or
if: = es fe Eee eagee F

Hi Hi “Fae
3 , # , epic Page No. 727
SCHEDULE 1—Free Inhabitants in <2. 2 ZZ. in the County of A-Ze-Méas State
of O20 enumerated by me, on the 47 day of _ 1860. ALLL czereecoes. aeet Marshal
Post Office Cee cetema% | Ih... Y }

20 y’rs of age
write.

Persons over
who cannot &

dumb, blind, insane,
idiotic, pauper, or

Attended School
within the

tN TE Ut OS [eee

hy

to
‘y | : ms
| |
| .
|
' ® sy
P ~
5B
F, ;
| } .
—_—_—_—_— — - ».
r ° -
“—
°
| ]
lL -~ _—.
\
_ i =
\

: ce had ts
. N N G Fe

‘

es mn 4% 2 aA ft h08HelhmUCUMDUCU

\

‘\ \ \ x
| \
\ Ss ih!
. \ Y* KA
N . NS \ A .)
; | | ;

— om
An >»

yas
ns)

nei
J

BR REEREERER SNARES:

ESCRIPTIO
3
a
-
be
)
s _f/
wz

eae
a

se VV Lb CELL SL IAA Al Se. Vee 0 ae ISD
.

a | | 74 Historic census records are maintained and released by
“/\) | «~ the National Archives and Records Administration,
of , not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Z

AN A

an iN # Visit htt IWWW.archives. OV for more information about publicly
‘ available records like the one shown here.

: i re

20} \S CP Csi? S
ei\\ |G.
a) | Gihed

33 Y,
| ty Whe “bi LY Asti ted
33} | FZ y
4s | |4Z, bn

e
be
a
\

\

: —
“4 (ALLA LA Oze A “a3

$388 & &

A AZ 27

Sy
A\ “aN

X

gs

ae! e IN N
4 : | Q « ‘
——- : “
\
\
\
i »
° \ , ,
? ,
4 \

&
A
\

I
re)
on

WEES ER DEE
> RPS Re MPP
Sea

|
|
|

i
|
’

S

No. foreign born,
| }

ee a
|

No. colored nities, * No. deaf and dumb, _____ No. i

’
. i
SOHRDULE 1—Froo Tababitentadn Ante

Of eens emnerata by:me, on thee day AF pete
Post Offige

an
Bruno

a
Los in the Oounty 6 Zena Bete
1800, hand Lard nc hast Marga,

ST, | meesscemene
arses
ih uy fof

a
3

344

Al

I
SS eee S Sr _|

GAS

KRAARAK

AG

SEES

PETER TERe

ey pes 3

a

oh
BARRA

.
i

ltt
REST EPE

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Arct

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available reco

hives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census

rds like the one shown here.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ernest R. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer ofCutter & Buck Inc., certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Quarterly Report of Cutter & Buck Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.      Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Dated: December 10, 2004 |
|-------------------------------|
|                          | /s/ ERNEST R.  JOHNSON |   |
|                          | Ernest R. Johnson |
|                          | *Chief Financial Officer* |
|                          | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NETLIST, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DIABLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1011

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 4:13-cv-05962-YGR, 

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

STANLEY JOSEPH PANIKOWSKI, III, DLA Piper LLP 

(US), San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM. 

FABIO E. MARINO, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, 

Menlo Park, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by NITIN GAMBHIR; NATALIE A. BENNETT, 

Washington, DC.

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, LINN, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 11, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header History
 You are here: Census.gov ›
  History ›
  FAQs › Agriculture FAQs Skip top of page navigation
 History Main
      Agency History
        Director Biographies
          Census Facilities
          Suitland, MD
          Notable Alumni
      Innovations
        Data Collection
          Technology
      Programs
        Agriculture
          Demographic
          Housing
          Economic
          Geography
          Governments
      Through the Decades
        Fast Facts
          Overview
          Index of Questions
          Questionnaires
          Census Instructions
      Genealogy
        Decennial Census Records
          Other Resources
      Reference
        Data@Museums
          Artifacts
          Lesson Plans
          Legislation
          Maps
          Oral Histories
          Privacy & Confidentiality
          Apportionment
          Publications
 Home Page Archive
        2024
          2023
          2022
          2021
          2020
          2019
          2018
          2017
          2016
          2015
          2014    
      FAQs
        Genealogy
          Agency History
          Demographic
          Economic
          Governments
          Agriculture
          Geography
          Innovations
          Miscellaneous
  In this Section: Does the U.S. Census Bureau conduct the census of agriculture?
  When was the first census of agriculture?
  When is the census of agriculture?
 Agriculture FAQs The United States has collected data on the nation's agriculture since U.S. marshals inquired about families' agricultural pursuits in 1820.  Over the next 190 years, the census of agriculture grew to reflect changes in American agriculture, including types and uses of machinery, irrigation, and fertilizer. Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the census of agriculture, but it still relies on U.S. Census Bureau employees to collect these vital data. census employees - farm censusCensus Bureau employees sort the tens of thousands of punch cards containing data from the 1935 Farm and Ranch Census.
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy