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



 EXHIBIT 4.1 
  





 
 NUMBER CERT. ******* China Customer Relations Centers, Inc. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS $0,001 PAR VALUE
COMMON SHARES SHARES ******* CUSIP G2118P102 COMMON SHARES THIS CERTIFIES THAT ******* Is The Owner of ******* FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON SHARES OF China Customer Relations Centers, Inc. Transferable on the books of the
Corporation 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 held subject to all of the provisions of the Articles and
Memorandum of Association of the Company (copies of which are on file with the Company and with the Transfer Agent), to all of which each holder, by acceptance hereof, assents. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent
and registered by the Registrar. Dated: ******* COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: VSTOCK TRANSFER, LLC Transfer Agent and Registrar By: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE President 







 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
	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT..................... Custodian.......................
	 TEN ENT
	 	 -   as tenants by the entireties
	  	(Cust)
                        (Minor)                

	 JT TEN
	 	 -   as joint tenants with the right of survivorship and not as tenants in common
	  	 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 Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

 Dated
                                         
                
  

			
	X	  	  


 THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE.
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions). 

SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: 
 TRANSFER FEE WILL
APPLY
## NO. 12

- 18

- 00289

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ELEUTERIO SALMERON

- G OMEZ,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Eleuterio Salmeron

- Gomez appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated, third

or more. According to the trial court’s certification, Appellant waived the right to appeal. The

certification was signed by Appellant and his counsel. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2( d )

. The record

also contains an express waiver of the right to appeal, which is also signed by Appellant and his

counsel.

When the defendant is the appellant, the reco rd must include the trial court’ s certification

of the defendant’ s right of appeal. Id

. This Court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that

shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id . Because

the trial court did not grant Appellant the right to appeal his conviction, we dismiss the appeal.

Opinion delivered November 5 , 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 5 , 2018

NO. 12

- 18

- 00289

- CR

ELEUTERIO SALMERON

- G OMEZ,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0355*18)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below

for observance.

By per curiam opinion

.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., H oyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Exhibit 23.2

  KPMG



The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Point West Capital Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statement Nos.
333-21825  and  333-21827 on Form S-8 of Point West Capital  Corporation  of our
report dated February 27,  1999   relating to the consolidated  balance sheet of
Point  West  Capital  Corporation  as of  December  31,  1998,  and the  related
consolidated  statements of operations  stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the two-year  period ended December 31, 1998,  which report
appears  in the  December  31,  1999  annual  report on Form 10-K of Point  West
Capital Corporation.

                                                /s/KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 2, 2000
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/   Curtis L. Hage                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Curtis   L. Hage, Chairman, President |
|   | and   Chief Executive Officer         |
|   |                                  |
|   | Date:                                 | May 13, 2011 |

 

----

*                                         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HF Financial Corp. and will be retained by HF Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
<PAGE>
                           EXHIBIT 24



               Consent of Independent Accountants



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Stanley Furniture Company, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.
33-58396 and 33-67218) of our report dated January 31, 1995, on our
audits of the financial statements and financial statement schedule
of Stanley Furniture Company, Inc. as of December 31, 1994 and
1993, and for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 1994, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.  We also consent to reference to our Firm under the caption
"Selected Financial Data."




                                     Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.




Richmond, Virginia
January 31, 1995
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.2


Compensation Arrangements With Non-Employee Directors


Non-Employee Directors of Nanometrics Incorporated are entitled to receive the following cash compensation in their roles as such:


Annual Cash Retainer:                        $50,000


Additional Cash Annual Retainers:
Chairman of the Board                        $30,000
Audit Committee Chairman                    $20,000
Compensation Committee Chairman                 $20,000
Nominating and Governance Committee Chairman             $10,000 
Audit Committee (other than Chairman)                $10,000
Compensation Committee (other than Chairman)             $10,000
Nominating and Governance Committee  (other than Chairman)    $  7,500 


All retainer fees are paid annually, as of the date of the annual stockholders meeting, and in advance of the provision of services to which the retainer relates.


Equity Compensation:


On the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, non-employee directors receive restricted stock units valued at $100,000, calculated using the closing market price of Nanometrics common stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market as of the date of the annual stockholders meeting. These awards vest on the earlier of the first anniversary date of the grant or the date of the next annual meeting of stockholders.


Any new non-employee director will receive restricted stock units valued at $100,000 pro-rated to reflect the amount of time served before the next annual meeting of stockholders. 


Other Matters:


If a non-employee director ceases to serve as a member of Nanometrics’ Board, a portion of the fees shall be refunded and equity awards shall be forfeited on a pro-rated basis. 


Non-employee directors are eligible to participate in Nanometrics’ self-funded Executive Reimbursement Plan, which is intended to supplement Nanometrics’ basic health plan by reimbursing expenses that are not covered by Nanometrics’ health plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                        1,486,065
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 56,373,849
<ALLOWANCES>                  12,684,012
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              45,175,907
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                45,175,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         41,806
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    45,134,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  45,175,902
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              5,643,930
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              433,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>              (25,029,061)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               30,248,408
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           30,248,408
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  30,248,408
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 4.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                 4.29


</TABLE>
#### Thomas Murphy and another *v.*George M. Granger.

*Admiralty: Libel for wages: Decree of forfeiture: Common-law suit for services.*A decree in a suit in admiralty "brought by a master to recover his wages, holding that the master had deserted his vessel and had there*359
      *by*forfeited Ms entire wages, is no tarto a common-law action to recover for the same services.

*Bes adjudícala.*It is held that the decision in *On-anger v. Judge of Wayne Circuit, 27 Mieh., 406,*rules this case.

*Submitted on briefs June 18.*

*Decided October 5.*

Error to Superior Court of Detroit.

*Moore é Griffin,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Pond & Brown,*for defendant in error.

MaestoN, J:

This case was once before this court in *Granger v. Judge of Wayne Circuit, 27 Mich., 406,*where it was held that the pendency of a suit in admiralty,was not a bar to the institution of another suit in a common-law court, and that it was improper to grant a stay of proceedings in the second suit. Granger claims to have acted as master of the tug Balize from March, 1871, to July 20th of the same year. After lea-ring, he commenced suit in the district court of the United States *in rem*to recover his wages. The court found that he had deserted the tug on the 20th of July, and decreed a forfeiture of his entire yages by reason thereof. He then appealed to the circuit court of the United States, and, pending the appeal, commenced this action to recover for the same services. The circuit court of the United States affirmed the decree of the district court. These facts were pleaded and proved upon the trial in this case. The court held that the plaintiff’s cause of action was not thereby barred, and judgment was rendered in his favor. This ruling of the court -is the only error assigned.

The facts, so far as the defense is concerned, are the same as when the case was here before, with the additional fact that the decree of the district court has been affirmed.

We do not consider it at all necessary to make any extended argument in this case, or review the cases cited by counsel in their briefs, as the questions raised were very

*360j fully and elaborately discussed when tHe case was Lore before. Tlio additional facts now presented do not, in our opinion, change the conclusions there announced, and we need but refer to and adopt the reasoning- in that case as conclusivo here.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed, with costs. j

The other Justices concurred.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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  quarterly  report  of  SpatiaLight,   Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 30,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned Officers 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,  to  their
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.



                                              /s/ROBERT A. OLINS
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Robert A. Olins
                                              Chief Executive Officer


                                              /s/SIDNEY B. LANDMAN
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Sidney B. Landman
                                              Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2004
**Exhibit 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-27739,333-56975, 333-67441, 333-83561, 333-45710, 333-68322, 333-96899, 333-118819, 333-03456, and 333-137944 on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 17, 2008, relating to the financial statements of Cost Plus, Inc. (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting standards) and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cost Plus, Inc.for the year ended February 2, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Francisco, California 

April 17, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

WILLIE L. WALLACE, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 : 

 v. : Case No. 2:18-cv-650 

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, : Magistrate Judge 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security : Elizabeth Preston Deavers 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand for further 

administrative proceedings pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties 

also request the court enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. (ECF No. 

14). 

The Motion is hereby GRANTED. The Court REMANDS this case for further 

proceedings. Upon remand, the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative 

Law Judge’s decision, and the Commissioner will conduct further proceedings and develop the 

administrative record as necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning 

of the Social Security Act, including offering Plaintiff a new hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY

 United States District Judge

Dated: March 4, 2019
Second Amendment to the Fortune Brands, Inc. 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 FORTUNE BRANDS, INC. 2007 
 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Fortune Brands, Inc. (“Fortune”) maintains the Fortune Brands, Inc. 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and

 WHEREAS, Fortune considers it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan to change the minimum duration of a performance period from two
years to one year for performance awards under the Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the power reserved to the Board of
Directors of Fortune by Section 13 of the Plan, the Plan be and is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2009, in the following particulars: 
 1. By deleting the second sentence of Section 7(a) of the Plan in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu thereof: 
 “The Committee shall determine the nature, length and starting date of the Performance Period for each Performance Award, which shall be at least one year (subject to Sections 12(c) and 12(d)) and shall determine
the Performance Goals to be used in valuing Performance Awards and determining the extent to which such Performance Awards have been earned.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors this          day of
                    , 2009.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CAPLES LAND COMPANY, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS,

AND ITS BUILDING AND

STANDARDS COMMISSION,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00005

- CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2016DCV2118)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the

appeal and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We

therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order costs of the appeal are taxed a gainst the party

incurring same, and this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C. J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

RYAN MCNUTT : CASE NO. 3:18ev151
Plaintiff,
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

v.
COURTNEY DUPRE, et al.

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been

settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties,

provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if

settlement is not consummated.

Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be

aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate

appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

bee

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 1:01-cv-00111-HJW Document 119-3 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00111-HJW Document 119-3 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00111-HJW Document 119-3 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00111-HJW Document 119-3 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00111-HJW Document 119-3 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 99-2 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.1

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM









We have issued our reports dated March 15, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-163512) and on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-145778, and 333-80505).





/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP





Tulsa, Oklahoma


March 15, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ANGELO TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-272 

v. 

 District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CHILD 

SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

Defendant. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF 17), 

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF 20), DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF 11), 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF 9), 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE 

AND PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Objections (ECF 20) to the Report and 

Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman (ECF 17) recommending that the 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default be denied (ECF 11) and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 

9) be granted. 

The Court has reviewed the findings of the Magistrate Judge and, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), this Court has made a de novo review of the record 

in this case. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds the Objections (ECF 20) 

are not well-taken and are hereby OVERRULED. 
-2-

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (ECF 17) in its entirety. The 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF 11) is denied and Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF 9) is granted. Plaintiff’s Federal Claims are dismissed with prejudice and 

Plaintiff’s State Law Claims are dismissed without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this Friday, August 16, 2019. 

 

 

 s/THOMAS M. ROSE 

__________________________________ 

 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### JOHN DEODATO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Submitted October 31, 1977

Decided November 18, 1977.

Before Judges Allcorn, Morgan and Horn.

*264*Mr. George J. Solcalslci,*attorney for appellant *(Mr. Peter Peletz, Jr.,*of counsel).

*Messrs. Harwood, Lloyd, Ryan, Kelly, Coyle & Wulster,*attorneys for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Law Division is affirmed essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Rosenberg in his opinion at 143 *N. J. Super.*396. See also, *Williams v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*151 *N. J. Super.*68 (App. Div. 1977).