alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.2

[FACE OF CERTIFICATE]
COMMON SHARES
NUMBER
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS
ORIGIN AGRITECH LIMITED
COMMON SHARES
SHARES
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
CUSIP TO COME
This Certifies that
is the owner of
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE, OF
ORIGIN AGRITECH LIMITED
transferable upon the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in person or
by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly
endorsed. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and
shall be subject to the laws of the British Virgin Islands and to the provisions
of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the corporation as now or
hereafter amended, to all of which the holder of this certificate, by acceptance
hereof, assents.
This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer
Agent and Registrar.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the corporation has caused this certificate to be endorsed
by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and to be sealed
with the facsimile seal of the corporation.
Dated:
TREASURER
[SEAL]
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

[REVERSE OF CERTIFICATE]
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants in common
TEN ENT -- as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in
common
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -- ........(Cust)................. Custodian
..........(Minor)................
under Uniform Gifts to Minors
Act .......................(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 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 Company
with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated

<PAGE>

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(s) Guaranteed
By
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS,
STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN
AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE
17Ad-15.
KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, MUTILATED OR
DESTROYED, THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO
THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.
#### M.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-691.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 20, 1986.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court's order adjudicating M.S. delinquent on the charge of disorderly conduct. The evidence was wholly insufficient to prove that the officer was precluded from carrying out his official duties because of the language and conduct of M.S. *See White v. State,*330 So.2d 3 (Fla.1976). *See also Gonzales v. City of Belle Glade,*287 So.2d 669 (Fla.1973); *D.C.E. v. State,*381 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), *cert. denied,*386 So.2d 635 (Fla.1980); *Harbin v. State,*358 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 372 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 372

 Honoring the men and women of the District of Columbia National Guard 
  for their extraordinary service and assistance to the United States 
                            Capitol Police.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2002

   Mr. Davis of Illinois (for himself, Mrs. Morella, and Mr. Waxman) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Honoring the men and women of the District of Columbia National Guard 
  for their extraordinary service and assistance to the United States 
                            Capitol Police.

Whereas the tragic events of September 11, 2001, prompted Task Force Capitol 
        Guardian and the activation and deployment of 90 soldiers on November 
        12, 2001, and such soldiers remained until January 6, 2002;
Whereas an additional 130 soldiers were deployed on January 7, 2002, and remain 
        in service until April 10, 2002;
Whereas the six units involved in Task Force Capitol Guardian were the 260th MP 
        Command, the 74th Troop Command, the 260th Regional Training Institute, 
        the HQ District Area Regional Command, the 121st Criminal Investigation 
        Detachment, and the 33rd Civil Support Team;
Whereas the soldiers worked a remarkable 207,120 hours in 150 days;
Whereas the soldiers provided perimeter security, barricade support, and vehicle 
        inspections 7 days a week, 24 hours a day;
Whereas the soldiers provided additional assistance by coordinating and 
        completing training with the United States Capitol Police and the 
        District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department as well as providing 
        security during the State of the Union address on January 29, 2002;
Whereas these deployed soldiers are the first armed soldiers deployed on Capitol 
        Hill since the 1968 riots following the assassination of Dr. Martin 
        Luther King, Jr.;
Whereas on May 3, 2002, the District of Columbia National Guard will be 
        celebrating 200 years of service; and
Whereas the District of Columbia has played a significant role in past armed 
        conflicts, such as World War II, Operation Desert Storm, and Operation 
        Joint Endeavor: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress honors the men and women of the District of Columbia 
National Guard for their extraordinary service, their protection of the 
United States Capitol, the safety of the Members of Congress, 
congressional staff, and visitors to the United States Capitol, and 
their assistance to the United States Capitol Police.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment to employment agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into as of May 15, 2005 and effective retroactively to March 22, 2004 (the
“Effective Date”), by and between AmeriPath, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“AmeriPath”), and Donald E. Steen (“Employee”), with reference to the following facts: 
  
 RECITALS 
  

	 	A.	AmeriPath and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement on March 22, 2004 (the “Agreement”). 

  

	 	B.	Employee currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of United Surgical Partners International, Inc., a publicly-held Delaware corporation (“USPI”), and Employee intends
to remain as Chairman of the Board of USPI during the term of this Agreement. 

  

	 	C.	Employee maintains his primary residence in Dallas, Texas where his family and other business endeavors are located. 

  

	 	D.	This amendment is to clarify certain information contained in the original Agreement. 

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants contained herein and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, AmeriPath and Employee mutually agree as follows: 
  
 AGREEMENT 
  
 1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following subsection (c) at the end of such section: 
  
 “(c) Work Location. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, AmeriPath acknowledges and agrees that Employee
has obligations outside of his duties as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of AmeriPath (as outlined in section 2(b) above). These duties require that Employee maintain his ties to the State of Texas, where the Employee maintains his
home, family, and other business endeavors. In order to successfully complete his obligations and perform his duties for Ameripath, Employee will be required to spend 50% of his time in Dallas, Texas and 50% of his time at AmeriPath’s corporate
headquarters located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The Employee will not be required to relocate his home, family, etc. from their current location in Dallas, Texas in order to fulfill the Employee’s obligations to AmeriPath.”








 2. Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in the form
in which it was originally executed and delivered. 
  
 3. This Amendment may be
executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be one and the same Amendment. 
  
 4. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, excluding principles of conflict of laws. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Amendment to the original Employment Agreement as stated above. 
  

					
	AMERIPATH:	 	AMERIPATH, INC.
			
	 	 	BY:	 	 /s/ David L. Redmond


	 	 	 	 	David L. Redmond
	 	 	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
			
	EMPLOYEE:	 	 	 	 /s/ Donald E. Steen


	 	 	 	 	Donald E. Steen
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7330]

Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Industry Advisory Panel of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings 
Operations will meet on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 from 9:30 a.m. until 
3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The meeting is open to the public and 
will be held in the Loy Henderson Conference Room of the U.S. 
Department of State, located at 2201 C Street, NW., (entrance on 23rd 
Street) Washington, DC. For logistical and security reasons, it is 
imperative that everyone enter and exit using only the 23rd Street 
entrance.
    The majority of the meeting will be devoted to an exchange of ideas 
between the Department's senior management and the panel members on 
design, operations, and building maintenance, with a focus on the new 
Design Excellence initiative. There will be reasonable time provided 
for members of the public to provide comment.
    Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance, a 
member of the public planning to attend should provide, by April 12, 
his or her name, professional affiliation, date of birth, citizenship, 
and a valid government-issued ID number (i.e., U.S. government ID, U.S. 
military ID, passport, or drivers license) via e-mail to: 
IAPR@state.gov. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be sent to 
the same e-mail address by April 12. Requests made after that date will 
be considered, but may not be able to be fulfilled.
    Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus 
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public 
Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of 
the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter 
Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access 
Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Privacy Impact 
Assessment for VACS-D at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100305.pdf for additional information.
    Please contact Christy Foushee at FousheeCT@state.gov or (703) 875-
4131 with any questions.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Adam E. Namm,
Director, Acting, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Overseas 
Buildings Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-8432 Filed 4-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Net Element, Inc.
 1450 South Miami Avenue
 Miami, FL 33130
 
 May 16, 2011
 
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 100 F Street, NE
 Washington, DC 20549
 
 Re: Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350
 
 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Net Element, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, each of the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), to the undersigned’s knowledge that:
 
 1.
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Net Element, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Net Element, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Net Element, Inc.
 
 BY: /s/ Mike ZoiMike ZoiChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)BY: /s/ Jonathan NewJonathan NewChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Net Element, Inc. and will be retained by Net Element, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 In accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, this certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to Net Element’s quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
#### Town of Dunnellon, Plaintiff in Error, v. Commercial Bank, Defendant in Error.

(Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc.,

May 2, 1905.)

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Marion county ; William S. Bullock, Judge.

*405
      *Allred & Davis,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*W. K. Zewadslci,*for Defendant in Error.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff .in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant takes writ of error. The writ of error is dismissed on praecipe of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
Exhibit 10.4

              FIRST AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

      THIS FIRST AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (the
"Amendment") is entered into as of the 29th day of January, 2004, by and between
NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and
THORNHILL CAPITAL LLC. ("Consultant").

                                    Recitals

      WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant entered into a consulting agreement
      dated December 5, 2001 (the "Consulting Agreement").

      WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant continue to operate under the terms of
      the Consulting Agreement.

      WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant wish to amend certain terms of the
      Consulting Agreement through execution of this Amendment.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is acknowledged, the parties mutually covenant and agree as follows:

      1.    Section 1.1 is hereby amended to provide that the Initial Term, as
            defined in the Consulting Agreement, shall now be defined as two (2)
            years from the effective date of this Amendment.

      2.    Section 1.2 is hereby amended to provide that monthly compensation
            paid by the Company to Consultant shall be $15,000.00.

      3.    Section 1.5 is hereby amended to provide that the Company shall not
            reimburse Consultant for any expenses.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the day and year first above written.


NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                 THORNHILL CAPITAL LLC


By: /s/ Charles T. Jensen                   By: /s/ Martha Refkin
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JAMES DAMON SUMPTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 97-6946

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-90-25)

Submitted: September 8, 1998

Decided: November 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Damon Sumpter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert William Jaspen,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.

L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA), established a one-year limitations period for filing motions under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). In Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-

7173, 96-7205, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), we determined that the one-year limitations period did not apply retroactively.

See id. at *5-6. Therefore, a person whose conviction became final

before the effective date of the AEDPA had until April 23, 1997, to

file a § 2255 motion. See id. at *6.

James Sumpter pleaded guilty to drug offenses in 1990. He did not

appeal his conviction or sentence. On April 28, 1997, his § 2255

motion, which was notarized on April 22, 1997, was filed in the district court. The district court dismissed the motion because it was filed

more than one year after the date Sumpter's conviction became final.

Sumpter appeals that decision.

We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of

appealability, vacate the order of the district court, and remand for

further proceedings. First, the district court must determine when

Sumpter delivered the motion to prison officials for mailing. See

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Burns v. Morton, 134

F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998). If the court finds that Sumpter delivered

the motion by April 23, 1997, the motion will be deemed timely filed,

and the district court presumably should address the merits of Sumpter's claims.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
ACCEPTED

04-15-00417-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

12/31/2015 9:57:56 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/31/2015 9:57:56 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
IV

★

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 328

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to coverage of outpatient

prescription drugs under the Medicare Program and with respect to

providing for appropriate new budget authority for such coverage.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

Ms. KILPATRICK (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, Mrs. JONES of

Ohio, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. KAPTUR, and Ms. BROWN of Florida) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees

on Energy and Commerce, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under the Medicare Program and with respect to providing for appropriate new budget authority for such coverage.

Whereas the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal

year 2002 established a reserve fund of $300 billion for

a medicare outpatient prescription drug program;

Whereas the rising costs of outpatient prescription drugs presents a great financial hardship for seniors and disabled

individuals and impairs their overall well-being;
2

HCON 328 IH1S

Whereas enactment of a medicare outpatient prescription

drug plan that provides for a comprehensive, universal,

and voluntary drug program for medicare beneficiaries is

needed; and

Whereas Congress and the President have pledged to enact

a meaningful medicare prescription drug plan: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) an outpatient prescription drug benefit for

4 medicare beneficiaries under the medicare program

5 should be enacted in 2002;

6 (2) the concurrent resolution on the budget for

7 fiscal year 2003 should include new budget authority

8 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008 to pro9 vide for coverage of outpatient prescription drugs

10 under the medicare program; and

11 (3) the aggregate amount of that new budget

12 authority for fiscal years 2003 through 2008 under

13 the concurrent resolution on the budget should be

14 $300,000,000,000.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8012]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This 
rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for 
maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be 
used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. 
This rate will be 2.250 (2 \1/4\) percent for the April-June quarter of 
FY 2012.
    Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for 
any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the 
cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New 
York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted 
by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate 
will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given 
State.

Grady B. Hedgespeth,
Director, Office of Financial Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-8012 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P