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


 








NUMBER   CERT.9999 Auddia, Inc. INCORPORATED  UNDER  THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE $0.001 PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK SHARES *******9,000,000,000******* CUSIP 999999ZZ9   COMMON STOCK THIS CERTIFIES THAT *  SPECIMEN * *  NINE BILLION  AND  00/100 * Is The Owner of FULLY PAID  AND  NON - ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF Auddia, Inc. Transferable  on  the books of the  Corporation 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. JANUARY 01, 2009 Dated: COUNTERSIGNED  AND REGISTERED: VSTOCK TRANSFER, LLC Transfer Agent  and Registrar Chief Executive Officer By: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE



    	 



    	 



    



The  following  abbreviations,  when  used  in the  inscription  on  the face of  thi s  certificate,  shall  be  construed as  though   they  were  written  out  in  full  according  to applicable  laws  or regulations. UNIF GIFT MIN ACT......................... C ustodia n ...................... . ( Minor ) TEN COM  TEN ENT   JT TEN (Cust)   Act........... ......... ................................... (State) - as  tenants  in common - as  tenants  by  the entireties - as  joint  tenants  with  the  right of s urvivorship  and  not  as  tenants   in common Additional  abbreviations  may  also  be  used  though  not  in  the  above list. For value received, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEA S E INSERT S OCI AL SECU RI TY OR OTHER I OENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: ( PLE ASE PR INT OR TYPEWRJTE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CO D E, 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 th e books of the within named C 01 poration with fill! power of substitution in the premises . Dated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T 1 - 1 E        S IGNAT  URE  TO THIS  ASSIGNMENT  MUST  C ORRE S PO N D  WITH  HIE   NAME  AS  WRITT EN  U PON  THE  FACE OF  THI S  C ERTIFI  CATE.  THE  SIGNATURE(S)   MUST BE G UAR ANTEE D BY AN E LIGIBL E G UARANTO R I NSTITUT IO N (Danks, Stockbrokers. Savings and Lo on Associnlions nnd Cre di! Un ions). SIGNATURE  GUARANTEED: TRANSFER  FEE  WILL APPLY
DLD-180 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1802

___________

IN RE: JOHNNIE DELANTRO YOUNG,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-cv-06112)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 5, 2011

Before: BARRY, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion filed: July 22, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Johnnie Delantro Young has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to 

compel the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania to provide him with “the court docket statements and the court documents 

[from his underlying habeas case] . . . without fee payment.” For the following reasons, 

we will deny the petition.

In November 2010, Young filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

challenging a 2008 controlled substance conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of 
2

Lancaster County. The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who directed the 

District Attorney of Lancaster County to respond to the petition. Meanwhile, Young 

requested that the District Court furnish him with “the court docket and documents.” A 

Deputy Clerk informed Young that there was a 30-cent fee for the information he 

requested, that the records could not be sent until the fee was received, and that the 

documents could not be provided free of charge without a specific order from the judge. 

Young now asks us to direct the District Court Clerk to provide him with copies of the 

documents he seeks.1

Issuance of a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in extraordinary 

circumstances only. See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). Its main 

purpose is “to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction 

or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated 

Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). To justify the Court’s use of this remedy, a 

petitioner must demonstrate that “there are no other adequate means of relief and the right 

to the writ is clear and indisputable.” First Jersey Sec., Inc. v. Bergen, 605 F.2d 690, 700 

(3d Cir. 1979). Young’s petition does not meet these requirements. Indeed, he can 

obtain the requested documents by paying the requisite fee. See Electronic Public Access 

Fee Schedule (reprinted with 28 U.S.C. § 1914 ). Nevertheless, as a courtesy in this 

 

1 Other than the “docket statement,” which we believe refers to the District Court 

docket report, Young has not identified the court documents that he wants.
3

instance, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to provide to Young, without charge, 

one (1) copy of the District Court docket report.

For the foregoing reasons, Young’s petition for a writ of mandamus will be 

denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 126 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 126

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
  relating to contributions and expenditures with respect to Federal 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2018

 Mr. Yarmuth (for himself and Mr. Cohen) submitted the following joint 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
  relating to contributions and expenditures with respect to Federal 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Financial expenditures, or in-kind equivalents, with 
respect to a candidate for Federal office, without regard to whether or 
not a communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a 
specified candidate in the election, shall not constitute protected 
speech, as guaranteed by this Constitution or any amendment to this 
Constitution.
    ``Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enact a mandatory 
public financing system to provide funds to qualified candidates in 
elections for Federal office, which shall be the sole source of funds 
raised or spent with respect to Federal elections.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

                            ZENEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.



                    Certification by Chief Financial Officer
           pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Zenex
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Debra G. Morehead, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (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 result of the operations of
     the Company.

Date:  November 14, 2005

By:        DEBRA G. MOREHEAD
           Debra G. Morehead
           Chief Financial Officer
Argued and submitted October 8,

affirmed November 26, 1979,

reconsideration denied March 6,

petition for review allowed April 22, 1980

#### ORE-IDA FOODS, INC., et al, *Appellants, v.*INDIAN HEAD CATTLE COMPANY, *Respondent.*

(No. 15,129-L, CA 13805)

602 P2d 1133

| Carl Burnham, Jr., Ontario, argued the cause for lellants. On the briefs were Cliff S. Bentz and irri, Rose & Burnham, Ontario.

*398William A. McCurdy, Boise, Idaho, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Jeremiah A. Quane; Quane, Smith, Howard & Hull; J. Burdette Pratt, Boise, and Henigson, Stunz, Fonda & Pratt, Nyssa.

Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Lee and Richardson, Judges.

JOSEPH, P.J.

*399JOSEPH, P.J.

This is a companion case to *Ore-Ida Foods v. Gonzalez,*43 Or App 393, 602 P2d 1132 (1979), and arises nt of the death of Hilario Gonzalez while he was in íe course and scope of his work as an employee of re-Ida. Plaintiffs are obligated to pay workers’ com-jnsation benefits to Donna Lee Burzota under ORS 56.226, but because she and the deceased were not iarried the plaintiffs cannot utilize the subrogation rovisions of ORS 656.591 and 656.593. Plaintiffs in-ituted this action on a theory that defendant torti-ísly injured the employer by causing the death of its nployee. The trial court sustained a demurrer, and aintiffs appeal.

If plaintiffs’ action is regarded as one for wrongful ;ath, it is barred by the rule that there is no common w cause of action for death *(Richard v. Slate,*239 Or 164, 396 P2d 900 (1964); *Goheen v. General Motors Corp.,*263 Or 145, 502 P2d 223 (1972)), and they are )t within the class of those who have a statutory action for wrongful death. *Jones v. Jones, 270*Or 869, 530 P2d 34 (1974). If it is viewed as a negligence action arising out of a breach of a standard of care owed an aployer by third parties the action is barred by the lie that an employer may not recover for injuries to i employee caused by the negligence of a third person, unless the injury was intentional. *Snow v. West,*250 Or 114, 440 P2d 864 (1968); *Wampler v. Palmerton,*250 Or 65, 439 P2d 601 (1968).

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-099-CV

JAY KURTIS GRAY 	APPELLANTS

AND GRAY LAW, L.L.P.

	V.

KATHERYN ANN GRAY	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 322ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	Appellants Jay Kurtis Gray (“Jay”) and Gray Law L.L.P. (“Gray Law”) appeal the trial court’s final decree of divorce.  Jay has appeared pro se and as attorney for Gray Law. 

	The appeal was submitted without oral argument before a panel of the court on November 27, 2007.  On that day, we notified appellants by letter that the court was concerned that the appeal is moot because it appears that the proceeds from the sale of the property in dispute previously held in the registry of the court have been disbursed in accordance with this court’s prior opinion in case No. 02-05-00379-CV, issued April 20, 2006.2  We stated that “unless the appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal files with the court on or before Friday, December 7, 2007 a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal will be dismissed as moot.”  Jay responded in writing that he and appellant Gray Law have no objection to the appeal being dismissed as moot.  

  	Because Jay and Gray Law have no objection to the appeal being dismissed as moot, it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed as moot.3  It is further ordered that appellants Jay Kurtis Gray and Gray Law, L.L.P. shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.4 

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:  CAYCE, C.J.; HOLMAN and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  January 10, 2008
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27147]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 690 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-358, K2025-356.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27147 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
#### In the Matter of Ruby Jeanette CLEMENTS, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 80-01180A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, Atlanta Division.

Nov. 6, 1981.

John E. Sacker, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

Thomas C. Jones, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant/debtor.

*197ORDER

A. D. KAHN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Before the court is the motion of Chrysler Credit Corporation to alter or amend an order of this court entered on April 29, 1981. In that order this court stated:

> The court finds that the annual percentage rate agreed upon by the parties in the contract has created a presumption of the annual percentage rate to which Chrysler is entitled in a payment plan pursuant to the Code.

The court also noted that:

> There is no evidence before the court demonstrating the present value of a sum certain to be paid over a period of time other than the contract.

On July 20, 1981, this court held a hearing and heard evidence presented by Chrysler. Chrysler argued that since the debtor had rejected the contract, Chrysler was in effect refinancing a used car, and it should receive interest calculated on the basis of the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act of Georgia, *Ga.Code Ann.*§ 96-1004. Chrysler attempted to show that if the car was financed on that basis, it would receive interest calculated at an annual percentage rate of 24.92%, rather than the annual percentage rate of 14.34% provided in the contract.

Strong and persuasive evidence is required to overcome the presumption accorded the contract rate. In the absence of such evidence the contract rate should stand.

Chrysler’s evidence is not persuasive. It posits a situation in which it would finance a used car in an arms-length transaction. Such is not the case here. The debt- or’s car has a value less than the debt. The debtor proposes to pay Chrysler under a Chapter 13 plan. It is not an arms-length consumer transaction in which the debtor is buying and financing a used car. Chrysler is not entitled to receive the maximum allowable under Georgia law in this context.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Chrysler’s motion to alter or amend the order of this court be DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that debtor Clements file, and serve, in accordance with this order, and the order of this court entered on April 29,1981, a proposed amended Chapter 13 plan within ten (10) days from the date hereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chrysler shall have ten (10) days from the date of the filing of the aforementioned amended plan to enter any objections to confirmation of said plan. Any of Chrysler’s objections not entered or renewed before the expiration of such time shall be deemed overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that unsecured creditors of the debtor be permitted to file their objections to said proposed amended plan within ten (10) days of filing, only to the extent that said amended plan materially alters the rights of the unsecured claimants from the rights now accorded under the pending plan before this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
---

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Ikona Gear International,
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2005, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'),
  we, Laith I. Nosh, President of the Company, and Raymond L. Polman, 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 of 2002, that:

| | (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
        result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Raymond L. PolmanRaymond L. Polman, Chief Financial Officer
  November 29, 2005

---
### Co urt of Appeals, S tate of Michigan ORD E R Ronald E Johnston v Sterling Mortgage & Investment Co mpan y Sterlin g Mortgage & Investment Company v Ronald E John sto n Docket No. 324855, 325238 

### LC No . 20 14-14 2153 -CH ; 20 14-141116-AV Kirsten Frank Kelly Pre s iding Judge Karen 

### M. Fort J lood S teph en 

### L. Borrell o

Jud ges The Court o rde rs that th e March 1 5, 20 1 6 opi ni on i s hereby AMEN D ED to conect a clerical e rror. On page 11 , second paragra ph , the fir st se ntence s hall read: Appel lants argue tha t the lower courts erred in g rantin g Appellecs possession in th e s umm ary proceedi n g and denyin g Connol ly's motion to intervene . Tn all other respects, the March 1 5, 20 16 op inion r emains u nchan ged.

A true co py e ntered and ce rt ified by Jerome W. Zi mmer J r ., C hi ef C lerk , on 

# JUN 13 2016 Da t e
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Worldwide
Entertainment & Sports Corp. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002325
<NAME> WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         391,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  404,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                   278,135
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,710,627
<PP&E>                                       1,845,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,898,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          737,399
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       189,218
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,971,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,898,128
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,567
<CGS>                                           13,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,443,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,304,129)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,882
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,307,011)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,307,011)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                             ------------

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

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

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the
"Report") of AMCON Distributing Company (the "Company") for the fiscal
quarter ended December 26, 2003, I, Michael D. James, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge, that:

    (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.

Date: February 9, 2004          /s/ Michael D. James
                                -------------------------
                                Title: Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Pierce, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 905]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendants did not object to the prosecutor’s summation, their argument that several of the prosecutor’s comments were improper is not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bruce,*216 AD2d 913; *People v Gaines,*216 AD2d 858; *People v Dunbar,*213 AD2d 1000, *lv denied*85 NY2d 972). In any event, the prosecutor’s characterization of the defense’s contentions as a "smokescreen” did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J. — Criminal Trespass, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.