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

NUMBER                              M-WAVE                                SHARES
MW2481

              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERRABLE IN                                COMMON STOCK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS OR NEW YORK, NEW YORK                        CUSIP 554034 10 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS CERTIFIES THAT

                                    SPECIMEN

Is the owner of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  FULLY-PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE PAR VALUE OF
                          $0.005 EACH, OF M-WAVE, Inc.

Transferable 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 and registered by
the Transfer Agent and Registrar. Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation
          and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.

SECRETARY                                               CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
August 21, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

UNITED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, L.P., WILLIAM MAXWELL AND TIFFANY 

TALLENT, Appellants

NO. 14-11-00330-CV V.

TOM AND DWANA THEIS, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Tom and Dwana 

Theis, signed March 18, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find the evidence legally insufficient to support the trial court’s 

judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and 

RENDER judgment that appellees, Tom and Dwana Theis, take nothing.

We order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellees, Tom

and Dwana Theis.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

 37.5

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed
on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (as amended); and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  /s/ Frank C. StipesFrank C. Stipes, Esq.
Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer and President
October 28, 2009
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 19, 2016

No. 04-16-00158-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Andres GARCIA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-15-319

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State filed its appellant’s brief on May 25, 2016. Therefore, appellee’s brief was due 

June 24, 2016. However, on June 29, 2016, appellee’s appointed attorney, Mr. G. Allen 

Ramirez, informed this court that he would file a response in writing stating appellee does not 

wish to contest the State’s appeal. Mr. Ramirez has filed neither his response, appellee’s brief, 

nor a motion for extension of time.

 

It is therefore, ORDERED that Mr. Ramirez file either a (1) written response stating 

appellee does not contest the State’s request for relief as stated in the State’s appellant’s brief or

(2) appellee’s brief no later than July 22, 2016. If Mr. Ramirez does not respond by July 22, 

2016, this cause will be abated for the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether: (1) 

appellee desires to file a responsive pleading to the State’s brief; (2) appellant is indigent, and if 

so, the trial court shall take such measures as may be necessary to assure the effective assistance 

of counsel, which may include the appointment of new counsel; and (3) counsel has abandoned 

the appeal. Because sanctions may be necessary, the trial court will be asked to address this 

issue even if new counsel is retained or substituted before the date of the hearing. 

The Clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Ramirez by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United States mail. The Clerk of this court shall 

also fax a copy of this order to the presiding judge of the County Court at Law, Starr County, 

Texas.
_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of July, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.1I, Robert C. White certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuerand have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and   (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and   (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: December 20, 2007 /s/ Robert C. White Robert C. White    President and Chief Executive Officer and    Principal Executive and Financial Officer
AFFORDABLE FLORIDA PROPERTY, LLC, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FANNIE MAE (Federal National Mortgage Association), et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2701

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.
Clifton CHISHOLM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2376

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

Rachael E. Reese, of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
David S. HASTINGS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3407

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 06, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari is denied. See Spaulding v. State, 93 So. 3d 473, 474-475 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00163-CV

MANN DEVELOPMENT, LTD.,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CI-05367

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 13, 2008

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a certificate of

service to appellee, and the appellee has not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against

appellant.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of NCI Building Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and3.
    
    The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NCI Building
Systems, Inc.
  /s/ Norman C. ChambersNorman C. ChambersChairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
EX PARTE Christopher Allan ELKINS

1160117

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
Randal Craig BRENDEL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0928

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Morton’s Restaurant Group,Inc. (“Morton’s”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Allen J. Bernstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Morton’s,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofMorton’s.

 

Date: May 17, 2004

 
|   | /s/ ALLEN J. BERNSTEIN  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Allen J. Bernstein      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO, CO., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mary LIMA, as Personal Representative, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4620

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 08, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Appellee-cross appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal filed June 1, 2018, is granted, and the cross-appeal is dismissed. The appeal remains pending.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 3, 2015

NO. 03-14-00131-CV

Zbranek Custom Homes, Ltd., Appellant

v.

Joe Allbaugh, Diane Allbaugh, and

Rutilio Albarran Construction, Inc. d/b/a El Paso Framing, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 10, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A0 41 1 . BI ANCA FLOR MASCORRO v . RAUL J AVI ER MONJ ARAZ

.

Rau l Jav i er Mo n

jaraz fi l ed a p et i ti o n fo r l eg it i m a t i o n an d cu s t od y o f h i s b i o l o g i cal ch i l d ren , A. M

. M

. an d A. R. M

. Aft er a h eari n g , t h e tri al co u rt en t ered i t s

“ Leg i t im at i o n O rd er,” g ran t i ng t h e pet i t i o n

. 1 Bi an ca Fl o r M as co rro fi l ed th i s t i m el y d i rect ap p eal fo l l o wed

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. A l eg i t i m at i o n act i o n i s a d o m es t ic rel at i on s cas e, an d an ap p eal i n a d o m es t ic
rel at i o n s cas e m

u s t b e i n i t iat ed b y fi l i n g an ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary rev i ew. See
OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (2 ), (b ); Cl o u d v. No r wo o d
, 32 1 Ga. Ap p. 2 1 8
, 2 1 8 (7 3 9 SE2 d 9 3 ) (2 0 1 3); Br o w n v. W

il l i a ms , 1 7 4 Ga. Ap p

. 6 0 4
, 6 04 (3 3 2 SE2 d 4 8 ) (1 9 8 5 ).

“ [C] o m p l i an ce wi th t he d i s cret io n ary ap p eal s p ro ced u re i s j u ri s d i ct i o nal .” Fi t z g er a ld

v. Dep a r t men t o

f H u m a n Res o u r ces , 2 3 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 9, 1 2 9 (4 9 7 SE2 d 65 9 ) (1 9 9 8 ).
M as co rro ’ s fai l u re t o fo l l o w t h e d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n ov er th is ap p eal
, wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. See Cl o ud
, 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p.
at 2 1 8

.

1 Th e o rd er d i d n o t award t h e p et i ti o n er cu s t o dy o f t h e ch i l d ren

. November 03, 2020C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/03/2020
Kristin N. TAYLOR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. James JORDAN, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3679

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: **2013 -**  **NM -**  **051 -**  **AD Costs:**  Labor per airplane (6 work hour(s) x $8 5 /hour) $510 Parts per airplane $ 0 Cost per airplane $510 Number of U.S.

- registered airplanes x 70 Total fleet cost $ 35,700 This AD restates the requirements of the previous AD. No new costs have been added. **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YE S ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
William NUNEZREYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2467

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 7, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                     CONSENT OF KABANI & COMPANY, INC. CPA'S


<PAGE>

                            [KABANI & CO. LETTERHEAD]




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the use of our report dated September 9, 2000, with respect
to the financial statements of INTELILABS.COM, INCORPORATED for the year ended
June 30, 2000, included in the Form 10-KSB Amendment 1 Statement for the year
ended June 30, 2000.



                                     /s/ Kabani & Company, Inc.
                                     ---------------------------
                                     Kabani & Company, Inc.
                                     Fountain Valley, California
                                     November 16, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          52,370
<SECURITIES>                                    40,467
<RECEIVABLES>                                      245
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,424
<PP&E>                                           4,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,779)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,454
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,367
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,256
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,209)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,209)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,209)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)
        

</TABLE>
Everett EDWARDS, DOC #577029, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2779

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      9
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,048
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          36,208
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,309
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,588
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          57,031
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            57,302
<LOANS>                                        544,905
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 735,863
<DEPOSITS>                                     649,328
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,473
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,440
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,520
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 735,863
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 35,203
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,303
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,840
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                42,346
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,555
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,712
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,634
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 24,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,388
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,792
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,792
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.91
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,090
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,102
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 17,828
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,826
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,210
<RECOVERIES>                                       231
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,734
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,734
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
J.D., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2359

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey P. DeSousa, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Beasley v. State*, 774 So.2d 649, 657 (Fla. 2000) (observing: "In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant 'admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence' ") (quoting *Lynch v. State*, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1974) ); *State v. Rodriguez*, 71 So.3d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (observing that when a defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal based upon insufficiency of the evidence, all reasonable inferences and conclusions that may be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State).