alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


                          [QUOVADX LOGO]          SHARES
                          QUOVADX, INC.

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS                 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                    CUSIP 74913K 10 6

This Certifies that

is the record holder of

    FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE, OF
                                 QUOVADX, INC.

transferrable on 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 is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer
Agent and registered by the Registrar.

         WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
signatures of its duly authorized officers.

/s/ ARTHUR F. SCHNEIDERMAN       [SEAL]    /s/ LORINE R. SWEENY
Secretary                                  PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEEC, INC.
UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,128,539
<SECURITIES>                                10,239,620
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,930,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,447,193
<PP&E>                                         378,095
<DEPRECIATION>                               (114,038)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,716,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,384,215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,031
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,282,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,716,250
<SALES>                                      3,817,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,789,564
<CGS>                                          614,219
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,314,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,945,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                875,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            875,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   875,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #20813 and #20814; NEBRASKA Disaster Number NE-20009]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4838-DR), dated 10/21/2024. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Tornadoes, and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         07/31/2024.
 DATES: Issued on 10/21/2024. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/20/2024. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/21/2025.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/21/2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Cass, Douglas, Lancaster, Sarpy, Saunders. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 20813B and for economic injury is 208140. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Rafaela Monchek, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2024-24973 Filed 10-25-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
where we can reach you at that time if it should be any different than your direct line. If you have any

questions, please let me know. Thanks.

Omer Shalev

Environmental Engineer

Air Permits Office (Air-3)

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 972-3538

“Eric Albnght” Omer & Scott 05/20/2010 12 41 55 P1

From: “Eric Albright” <ealbrightEnvironcorp.com>To: Omer Shalev/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Bohning/R9/USEPNUSEPA

Cc: “Dave Brown” <DBrown@spi-ind.com>, ‘Cedric Twight” <CTwightspi-ind.com>

05/20/2010 12:41 PM

Subject: SPI-Anderson 

Omer & Scott:

Attached is the PSD permit application that was submitted in May 2007 for SPI’s previously proposed new

biomass-fired cogeneration unit at the Anderson, California facility. This permit application includes

analyses of criteria pollutant concentrations and AQRVs in regional Class I areas using the FLAG

modeling guidance and model versions that were appropriate at that time. As indicated in the current

permit application, which includes an emission unit that is approximately 25 percent larger than thatpreviously proposed, the FLMs have indicated their lack of interest in reviewing a revised AQRV analysis

based on the results of the current QID analysis and the previous AQRV analysis. While we understand

that EPA does not typically use the results of aQ/D analysis to guide the necessity to predict criteria

pollutant concentrations in Class I areas for comparison to the SILs and/or to assess compliance with the

applicable PSD increments, we propose that the results of the current QID analysis (the maximum is 5,4

at the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness Area), combined with a lack of potential for significant impacts

based on the 2007 modeling (the maximum predicted 24-hour average PM3concentration in the Yolla

Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness Area was the closest to the EPA-proposed SIL — 00617 pg/rn 3compared to

0.3 pg/rn 3),suggests that developing a revised Class I area analysis using the current model versions and

following the current FLAG guidance would not be a worthwhile expenditure of time and effortThanks, and I look forward to discussing this and the other modeling issues outlined in the May 11, 2010

information request.

Eric Aibright j Senior Manager

ENVIRON International Corporation www.environ cc’ ealbrin@environcorp.com

C;2D 3 Ave W Sue 3]Q V:V’c/’ WA ‘553

main: 425.412.1800 tax: 425.672.1840 airect: 425.412.1804 cc.,: 206.909.0591
**EXHIBIT        21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES        OF THE REGISTRANT**

| Company                  Name                           |    | Jurisdiction/Country                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Hifn                  Limited                |    |  United                  Kingdom                                                                                                                                      |
|  HifnNetherlands                  B.V.   |    |  Netherlands                                                                                                                                                          |
|  Hifn                  International          |    |  Cayman                  Islands                                                                                                                                      |
|                                                    |  - |  Hifn                  (Hangzhou) Information Technologies Co., Ltd. (previously known                  as Saian                  (Hangzhou) Microsystems, Co., Ltd.) |   |  People’s                  Republic of China |
|                                                    |  - |  Hangzhou                  Ansai Information Technology Co., Ltd., (contractually                  controlled)                                                        |   |  People’s                  Republic of China  |

----
#### Empire Trust Company, Appellant, v. David H. Dye, Appellee.

October 25, 1927.

Behearing Denied May 11, 1928.

*1272*Wisdom <& Kirketeg,*for appellant.

*J. M. Haddock,*for appellee.

Faville, J.

— An amended and substituted petition was filed in this cause, wherein the appellant was made the sole plaintiff. The petition alleged that the appellee executed and delivered to the Athelstan Bank a certain promissory note, a copy of which, together with the indorsements thereon, is set out in the petition; and it is alleged that, before maturity, and in the usual course of business, the appellant acquired the said note, as collateral security for money loaned to said Athelstan Bank. The appellee filed an answer in separate counts. In one of said counts, the appellee admits that he executed the note, and that it bears the indorsements as alleged in the petition. The appellee also alleged that he “denies each and every other allegation contained in said amended and substituted petition, having neither knowledge nor information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of said remaining statements.” Appellee also pleaded a counterclaim. To said answer the appellant filed a demurrer, on the ground that:

“Said pleadings show upon their face that the statements therein contained constitute no defense to the cause of action alleged in the plaintiff’s amended and substituted petition and the amendment thereto, the pleadings of the defendant admitting the execution and delivery of the note, as alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings, and the only defense thereto being that, at the time W. A, Boyer became the owner of; said note, and the plaintiff became the owner thereof, the defendant had on deposit with the Athelstan Bank money more than sufficient to pay said note. It further appearing by the admitted facts that the note so signed by the defendant was a negotiable promissory note, and acquired .in the ordinary course of business by said W. A. Boyer and this plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, before maturity, without any knowledge or information as to any defect or infirmity in the title of the Athelstan Bank or any defenses that the defendant had thereto.”

*1273The demurrer was overruled. The answer of the appellee contained a general denial. The demurrer challenged the sufficiency of the entire answer. The answer was in separate counts, and, even though it contained inconsistent defenses, this is permissible, under Section 11199, Code of 1924. We had a similar question before us in the recent case of *Seibel v. Olson Bros. Hardware,*202 Iowa 711, wherein we said:

‘ ‘ The effect of a general denial is not nullified by the color-able confession alleged in connection with a plea in avoidance. *Barr v. Hack,*46 Iowa 308; *Rudd v. Dewey,*121 Iowa 454; *Runkle v. Hartford Ins. Co.,*99 Iowa 414.”

The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to said answer. The foregoing is alone determinative of this appeal. The appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, which was ordered submitted with the case, is overruled. The judgment is *—Affirmed.*

Evans, C. J., and Stevens, Kindig, and Wagner, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00012 - CR

JOSEPH EUGENE JACKSO N APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COUR T NO. 9 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- App ellant Joseph Eugene Jackson appeals from his conviction for terroristic threat. A jury convicted him of the offense, and the trial court sentenced him to 180 days’ confinement. Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 California 2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Although Appell ant was given an opportunity to file a pro se brief, he has not done so. After an appellant’s court

- appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. 3 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 4 We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find no thing in the record that arguably might support the appeal. 5 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GARDNER, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 4 7.2(b )
DELIVERED: September 26, 2013

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

3 See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).

4 See Pen son v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

5 See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
#### T. J. Johnson, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William D. Emanuel, defendant in error.

Prior to the Act of 1873, the landlord, in the absence of any contract to that effect, had no lien on the crops of the tenant for his rent, before the levy of a distress warrant therefor.

Landlord and tenant. Distress warrant. Lien. Before Judge James Johnson. Talbot Superior Court. September Term, 1873.

For tbe facts of this case, see the decision.

W. A. Little ; J. M. Matthews, for plaintiff in error.

Willis *&*Willis, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This case came before the Court below on the trial of a claim to sixteen hundred pounds of seed cotton which bad been levied on by virtue of a distress warrant, issued in favor of the plaintiff against Scott for rent, which was claimed by Emanuel. It appears from the evidence in the record that on the Saturday before the distress warrant was levied on the cotton, Scott had sold and delivered it to the claimant in payment for a horse. By the written contract between Scott and the plaintiff it is not stated therein that Scott was to pay a part of the crop made on the land for the rent of it, but that he shall pay $25 00 for the use of a mule, and pay seventeen hundred pounds of good lint cotton. The Court charged the jury, in substance, that if Scott, the defendant, had sold the cotton to the claimant for a valuable consideration, and had delivered it to him before the distress warrant was levied thereon, it was not subject thereto, though it might defeat the plaintiff’s claim for rent; to which charge the plaintiff* excepted.

This distress warrant was issued prior to the Act of 1873. There was no contest as to liens in this case, and no contract that the plaintiff should have a lien on the cotton for his rent.

*591The landlord’s lien for rent, under the contract in this case, had not attached to the cotton before the levy of his distress warrant thereon, so as to defeat the claimant’s title to it under his purchase from Scott, prior to the levy of plaintiff’s distress warrant. We find no error in the charge of the Court in view of the facts contained in the record.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
#### Frank Condit, Appellee, v. H. Feldman et al., Appellants.

MECHANICS’ LIENS: Evidence — Sufficiency. Record held to support the judgment of the court relative to the amount of a mechanics’ lien.

*Appeal from Woodbury District Court.*— ¡George Jepson, Judge.

February 14, 1922.

Suit to foreclose a mechanics’ lien for labor. There was a decree for plaintiff, and the defendants *appeal.*

Affirmed.

*1393*Naglestad &*Pizey, for appellants.

*Farr & Farr,*for appellee.

Evans, J.

The plaintiff pleaded an itemized statement of his accoruxt, showing 574 hours of labor at 50 cents per hour, and credited partial payment thereon, and claimed a balance due of $137. The defense was that the claim was excessive, and that the plaintiff had worked for 324 hours and no more, and that he had been overpaid for such work to the amount of $9.00. There was also a counterclaim for $200 for damages for unskillful work. The plaintiff was a very unskilled carpenter. He worked for 50 cents an hour, which was half the rate of ordinary carpenters. The defendant Feldman was a Russian, fruit peddler, who had a house comprising his home, which needed much repair. The plaintiff was engaged in such repair. The work consisted of putting on a new roof and of building a porch and of doing more or less plastering and chimney building and of enlarging rooms and inserting windows and various other things. The material furnished him, except, perhaps, the shingles, was secondhand lumber of a very rough sort, obtained by the defendant either by gift or trade. The combination of plaintiff’s lack of skill and the quality of the material furnished him to work with did not result in a first-class job. No warranty or representation of skill by the plaintiff was charged tby the defendant. The trial court allowed nothing upon the counterclaim. .The only other issue related to the amount of plaintiff’s time and the amount of payments that had been made to him. No question is presented except these fact questions. The burden.was upon the plaintiff to prove his claim. There is a good deal that is unsatisfactory about his evidence. The evidence on behalf of the defendant was even more unsatisfactory. In the course of the trial, the defendant confronted the plaintiff with a leaf from his own notebook, which, if it had reference to the defendant’s job, showed a smaller number of hours of work by the plaintiff and a smaller balance 'due than that claimed. The plaintiff denied that the contents of such leaflet had reference to the Feldman job. The defendant, however, introduced the leaflet in evidence. The trial court entered judg*1394ment against the defendants for the amount of balance due, as shown by such leaflet.

Inasmuch as only a fact question is involved, it will serve no useful purpose that we enter upon a discussion of the evidence. We have carefully read the record, and on the whole are satisfied with the findings of the trial court. The decree is *accordingly*— A *¡firmed.*

Stevens, C. J., ArthuR and Faville, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                               CERTIFICATE OF THE
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                             TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

      I, James A. Mallak, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Tower
Automotive, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14 (b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of title 18 of
the United States Code that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (1)   The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2004, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and;

      (2)   The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tower Automotive,
Inc.


Date: August 9, 2004                      By: /s/  James A. Mallak
                                              -------------------------------
                                              James A. Mallak
                                              Chief Financial Officer and
                                              Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       92
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,339
<PP&E>                                          21,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,361
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,024)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,249
<SALES>                                            683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,350)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,350)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.60)


</TABLE>