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



 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 







 THE CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE TWO CLASSES OF STOCK, COMMON STOCK AND PREFERRED STOCK. THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION HAS AUTHORITY TO FIX THE NUMBER OF SHARES AND THE DESIGNATION OF ANY SERIES OF PREFERRED STOCK AND TO DETERMINE OR ALTER THE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES, PRIVILEGES AND RESTRICTIONS GRANTED TO OR IMPOSED UPON ANY UNISSUED SHARES
OF PREFERRED STOCK. 
 THE CORPORATION SHALL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS A STATEMENT OF THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES
AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OF THE CORPORATION OR SERIES THEREOF AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS. SUCH REQUESTS SHALL BE MADE TO THE
CORPORATION’S SECRETARY AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION. 
  

 

					
	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	  	UTMA –                     Custodian            
         
		  		  	                      (Cust)               
          (Minor)
	TEN ENT	  	–   as tenants by entireties	  	under Uniform Transfers to Minors
			
	JT TEN	  	–   as joint tenants with right of survivorship	  	Act
                                         
                       
		  	     and not as tenants in common	  	        (State)
	Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.

  
  

			
	For value received              hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto
	   PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

	 IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	 	
	 	 	 
		
	 	 	 
	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)
	
	 
	
	 


                         
                                         
                                         
                                         
                             Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do
hereby irrevocably constitute and
appoint                                        
                                         
                                         
               Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 

 

							
	Dated	 	 	 		  	 
				
		 		 		  	 
				
		 		 		  	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.

 SIGNATURE GUARANTEED 
  

			
	  
 ALL GUARANTEES MUST
BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (“STAMP”), THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (“MSP”), OR THE
STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM (“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNA AKOPIAN, AKA Anoush

Patrikian,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70640

Agency No. A095-716-867

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Anna Akopian, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Georgia,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her

appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum,

FILED

MAY 12 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, Cortez–Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th

Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the treatment

Akopian endured did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,

319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the

agency’s finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future

persecution, because her fear is not objectively reasonable. See Castro-Martinez v.

Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, Petitioner has not established

eligibility for asylum. Because Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum,

it necessarily follows that she failed to meet the more stringent standard for

withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.

2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of Petitioner’s CAT claim,

because she has not shown that it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Georgia if she is returned

there. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION DENIED.

-2-
----

|   | (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 the      Company. |

|   | /s/ J. Vincent Mish                                       |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | J.      Vincent Mish                                      |   |
|   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4082

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the William H. Donham

State Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 17, 1994

Ms. LAMBERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery to the State of

Arkansas.

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 ‘‘William H. Donham

5 State Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF WILLIAM H. DONHAM STATE FISH

7 HATCHERY TO STATE OF ARKANSAS.

8 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of

9 the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas, without

10 reimbursement and by no later than December 31, 1994,
2

•HR 4082 IH

1 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

2 to the property described in subsection (b), for use by the

3 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of the State

4 of Arkansas fish culture program.

5 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

6 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the William

7 H. Donham State Fish Hatchery, located one mile west

8 of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway 67 in

9 Clay County, Arkansas, consisting of 27 acres (more or

10 less), and all improvements and related personal property

11 under the control of the Secretary that is located on that

12 property, including buildings, structures, and equipment.

13 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES.—

14 If after the conveyance required by subsection (a) any of

15 the property described in subsection (b) is used other than

16 as described in subsection (a), all right, title, and interest

17 conveyed under this section shall revert to the United

18 States.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3693 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                            Calendar No. 410

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3693

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under construction in Denver, 
       Colorado, as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.

               April 13 (legislative day, April 11), 1994

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

                                                       Calendar No. 410
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3693

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 13 (legislative day, April 11), 1994

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States courthouse under construction in Denver, 
       Colorado, as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse being constructed through renovation 
of the old post office building in Denver, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Byron White United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Intelligence AgencyCOMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION

Search
Search

Search
                    - Facilities Operating Status
                    - Employee Resources

-  Home		 
-  About    -  FAQs             
  -  Organization      -  Locations             
    -  Missile and Space Intelligence Center             
    -  Joint Military Attache School             
    -  Joint Military Intelligence Training Center 
  -  Office of the Inspector General             
  -  Equal Opportunity & Diversity             
  -  Military Integration Office             
  -  History      -  DIA Museum             
    -  George Washington Letters             
    -  Directors of DIA             
    -  The Historians 
  -  Patriots Memorial             
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response             
  -  Contact Us 
-  News & Features    -  Articles             
  -  Videos             
  -  DIA in the News             
  -  Threat Reports             
  -  Photo Gallery             
  -  No FEAR             
  -  Podcasts             
  -  DIA Comics 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Career Fields      -  Analysis             
    -  Counterintelligence             
    -  Finance & Acquisition             
    -  Human Intelligence             
    -  Human Services             
    -  Information Technology             
    -  Inspector General             
    -  Legal             
    -  Mission Management             
    -  Office Management & Infrastructure             
    -  Science & Technology             
    -  Security 
  -  Search Vacancies             
  -  Apply to DIA             
  -  Hiring Process             
  -  Internships             
  -  Veteran Programs 
-  Business    -  Contractor Personnel Security             
  -  SIA3             
  -  SITE III             
  -  Innovation             
  -  NeedipeDIA             
  -  Office of Small Business Programs             
  -  Small Business FAQs 

HOMENEWS & FEATURES

Search

Search

                            - All Images 
                            - Other 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.18 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
----

Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Pergan GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-474/04)

(2005/C 45/59)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 December 2004 by Pergan GmbH, Bocholt (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission refused in part the applicant's request of 13 July 2004 for removal of all references to conduct of the applicant allegedly contrary to cartel law in the definitively published version of the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 imposing fines in Case COMP/E-2/37.857 – Organic Peroxides.

In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that, under Article 21 of Regulation No 17/62, the published version of a decision imposing fines for an infringement may name only the participating undertakings. Since the applicant was not the addressee of the decision imposing fines, the Commission is prohibited from publishing its findings in respect of the applicant. Moreover, it was impermissible for the Commission to assume that a decision finding an infringement on the part of the applicant would be adopted. In the applicant's view, the Commission has no competence under Regulation No 17/92 to adopt such a decision and is unable to establish a legitimate interest in doing so. Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the right to an effective legal remedy laid down in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that connection, the applicant argues that, although the Commission alleges that it is guilty of comprehensive breaches of cartel law, it omitted to address the decision imposing fines to it and thus restricted its ability to avail itself of a legal remedy.

----
#### Syed Farooq, Respondent, v Millard Fillmore Hospital, Appellant.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff, a physician, instituted this action alleging that defendant hospital wrongfully denied him staff privileges. He seeks damages and an injunction. Defendant appeals from that portion of an order that denied its cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

An injunction action under Public Health Law § 2801-c is the exclusive remedy for an alleged violation of section 2801-b (1). As at common law, no cognizable claim for damages arises out of a hospital’s wrongful denial of staff privileges to a physician *(see, Guibor v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp.,*46 NY2d 736, 737; *see also, Matter of Cohoes Mem. Hosp. v Department of Health,*48 NY2d 583, 587). Thus, plaintiff’s damages claim must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action *(see, Dolgin v Mercy Hosp.,*127 AD2d 557; *Kolker v St. Francis Hosp.,*145 Misc 2d 966, 968).

Additionally, plaintiff’s injunction claim must be dismissed because of his failure to allege that he exhausted his administrative remedies. Before proceeding under Public Health Law § 2801-c, a physician is required to present his claim to the Public Health Council *(see, Guibor v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., supra,*at 738, *affg*56 AD2d 359, 363-364; *see also, Matter of Cohoes Mem. Hosp. v Department of Health, supra,*at 588). Because plaintiff has failed to do so, his injunction claim is premature, and defendant’s cross motion to *1064dismiss must be granted *(see, Guibor v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., supra).*(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Den-man, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Gavriel Bolotin, President,
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director of Plesk Corp. (the “Registrant”), certifies,
under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended November 30, 2012 (the “Report”):



| | (1) | 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 the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: January 21, 2013 | By: | /s/ Gavriel Bolotin                                                                                                                                                       | 
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                       |     | Name: Gavriel Bolotin                                                                                                                                                     | 
|                       |     | Title:   President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) | 



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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian McDonald, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered on June 22, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years and *IV2*to 3 years, respectively unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested after he emerged covered with white dust from a vacant store carrying a bundle of clothing. On investigation, it was ascertained that the clothing, worth $3,200, had been taken from the clothing store next door to *276the vacant store, and that there was a hole in the common wall. The floor of the clothing store was covered with a dust similar to that found on defendant, ostensibly gypsum dust. Under these circumstances, we think the evidence presented, albeit circumstantial, was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION302**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, David Weinreb, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-Q of The Howard Hughes Corporation;

 

2.          Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.          Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

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

 

a)       Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its combined subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)       Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)       Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

5.          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)       All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)       Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 23, 2010 |   | /s/ David Weinreb       |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | David Weinreb           |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----