alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1
 
 SHARES
ICG ICG Group, Inc.
COMMON STOCKINCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COMMON STOCKSEE REVERSE FOR
CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
CUSIP 44928D 10 8
THIS CERTIFIES THAT:
SPECIMEN
IS THE OWNER OF:
FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $.001 PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OFBy
ICG Group, Inc.
hereinafter called the Corporation, transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the
holder hereof in person, or by his, her or its duly authorized attorney, upon the 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 MELLONCountersigned contained in the Corporations
Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended (copies of which are on file with the Transfer
Agent), to which the holder by acceptance Transfer hereof assents. This Certificate is not valid
until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. and WITNESS the facsimile
seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. Agent DATED:
INVESTORroup,and G G InRegistered:
POR c
C R AT . I C O E
SEALAuthorized Registrar SERVICES 1999
DEELA ARLLCW
SECRETARY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Signature




---



##### 



ICG GROUP, INC.
   TEN COM
    
     as tenants in common
    
    
    
    UNIF TRANS MIN ACT

    ___________ Custodian ___________TEN ENT
    
     as tenants by the entireties
    
    
    
    
    
    (Cust)     
          
            (Minor)JT TEN
    
     as joint tenants with right
    
    
    
    
    
    under Uniform Transfers to Minors Actof survivorship and not as tenants
    
    
    
    
    
    _____________________in common
    
    
    
    
    
    (State)
  
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHERIDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
 
  
 
 
  
 Dated
    
    
    
    
    
    XXNOTICE: The signature(s) to this assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written upon the
face of the Certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change
whatever.
 SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR
INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, AND CREDIT
UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
PURSUANT
TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
 KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, MUTILATED OR DESTROYED, THE
CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT
CERTIFICATE.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0255 Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-253-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

16.0 $1,360.0

0

$1,340 $2,700.00 185 $499,500.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $499,500

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03820]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 18, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to 
March 18, 2022, 07:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 
II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the 
Federal Register on February 08, 2022, FR Doc 2122-02527, V-87, Number 
26, Page 7194.
    Meeting is being amended to change the Contact Person from James Li 
to David Filpula, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for 
Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health. The meeting is closed 
to the public.

    Dated: February 17, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03820 Filed 2-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Part I, Section B, Item C - ID Method

T-C5072P
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

I, James R. Lavelle, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Cotelligent, Inc. certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this interim report on Form 10-Q of Cotelligent, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included 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 periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003
454 A.2d 182

#### Magen, Appellant v. Lankenau Hospital, et al.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Granted May 16, 1983.

Argued September 10, 1980.

S. Robert Levant, for appellant; Ralph L. Hose, for Lankenau, appellee; James J. McCabe, for Jones, appellee; James L. Griffith, for Neal, appellee.

*646Before SPAETH, HESTER and CAVANAUGH, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Liberate Technologies, that this annual report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Liberate
Technologies.

|Date: August 13, 2004 |  |                                                                                       
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | /s/DAVID LOCKWOODDavid Lockwood
Chief Executive Officer                               
|Date: August 13, 2004 |  |                                                                                       
|                      |  | /s/GREGORY S. WOODGregory S. Wood
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Elvalyn ALLEN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 25, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 11



Consent of Mark Petersen

United States Securities and Exchange
Commission

Ladies and Gentlemen:



I, Mark A. Petersen, SME Registered Member,
AIPG Certified Professional Geologist, hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, and the inclusion in the annual report
on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc. of the information reviewed and approved by me that is all the information of a scientific or technical
nature contained in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2017, other than the
scientific and technical information relating to the operation of New Gold’s operating mines.



Dated this 29th day of
March, 2018



Yours truly,



|      | /s/ Mark Petersen                                                                                                           | 
|----- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: | Mark A. Petersen                                                                                                            | 
|      | AIPG Certified Professional Geologist – CPG No
        10563
        SME Registered Member No 2519520
        New Gold Inc. |
#### The St. Louis, Ottumwa & Cedar Rapids R’y Co. v. Devin et al.

1. Conveyance: delivery: .condition: evidence. Plaintiff sought to quiet its title to land under an alleged lost and unrecorded deed; but it failed to establish the delivery of the deed by a preponderance of the evidence, and it appeared by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the deed was a conditional one, and that, by reason of plaintiff’s failure to perform the condition, the title never passed. *Held*that plaintiff could not recover.

*Appeal from Wapello Circuit Court.*

Monday, June 13.

This is an action in equity, involving the title.to a- valuable tract of land in the city of Ottumwa. The plaintiff demands a decree quieting its title to the land. The defend*667ants claim that they are the owners of the property, and that the plaintiff has no interest therein. There was a decree in the circuit court for the defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

*Stiles (& Beaman*and *S. 8.*Carruthers, for appellant.

*Williams c& Jaoques*and *II. B. Hendershott,*for appellees.

Rothrock, J.

The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the land under an alleged conveyance made by one Thomas Devin in the year 1868. The defendants are the heirs and representatives of Devin, who died in the year 1873, and they claim that he was seized in fee of the property at the time of his death. No conveyance of the land from Devin was at any time made of record; and the plaintiff did no.t upon the trial produce a deed purporting to have been executed by Devin. It was claimed that the deed was lost, and reliance was had upon parol evidence of the existence and contents of a deed. On the other hand, the defendants ad'mit that a deed was signed by Devin; yet they contend that the same was a conditional conveyance of the land, to be void unless a railroad depot should be built thereon in three or five years. They further contend that the deed was never delivered.

The evidence is quite voluminous. There is no dispute that a deed was signed by Devin, and that he intended to donate the land for depot purposes. "We are inclined to think that plaintiff does not show, by a preponderance of evidence, that the deed was ever delivered. However this may be, we are quite well satisfied that there is a clear preponderance of evidence,that the deed was a conditional one, and that the title never passed, by reason of the failure of the grantee to perform the condition.

Ve are satisfied that the decree of the court below is correct.

Affirmed.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
Two Larks Photo, LLC

13542 W 67th Place

303-351-1154

greg@twolarksphoto.com

October 16, 2015

Petition for Section 333 Exemption

I hereby formally request FAA authorization for Two Larks Photo, LLC (hereafter “PETITIONER”) to 

operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes other than for recreation or hobby.

PETITIONER requests to be exempted from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 

61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow PETITIONER to 

operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging. 

PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS both within and without the United States. 

PETITIONER frequently travels abroad for photographic endeavors and seeks to use UAS in 

accordance with all laws of foreign and domestic governmental authorities.

PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use of UAS models including DJI Phantom 1, DJI 

Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire , 3D Robotics IRIS+, 3D Robotics Solo, 3D Robotics X8+, and 

3D Robotics X8- M, or other similar commercially-available and widely-available UAS models.

PETITIONER will conduct its use of UAS in a manner which will minimize risk to the NAS, other 

persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a pre-flight 

inspection before each flight to examine air-worthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially altered from 

commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS will not be 

flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within line of sight to operator(s) pursuant to 

Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will 

never reach speeds exceeding 55 mph, (7) operator will perform a pre-flight visual inspection of the

NAS to determine nearby dangers such as low-flying manned or unmanned aerial vehicles, power 

lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote 

control, and proper performance at a very low altitude before reaching the NAS, and (9) nonparticipating spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away from the flight path of the UAS 

and its landing location. PETITIONER is an experienced UAS operator with more than one year of 

experience.

This petition will benefit the public interest. PETITIONER will provide imagery which is not 

otherwise possible to be captured without the use of a UAV, which will assist companies to which 

the images may be sold, will enhance the public understanding of nature photographed by the UAS, 
and PETITIONER will be able to provide UAS safety information to those with whom he or she 

comes in contact.

Please grant the requested exemption under Section 333.

Gregory H Shepherd

Two Larks Photo, LLC
#### Clara Gralnik, Appellant, v Brighton Beach Associates, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp., Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 633]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 3, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp. (hereinafter Olympia) established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by adducing evidence that it did not negligently install a toilet in the plaintiff’s apartment approximately 41⁄2 years before her accident *(see Dini v Imperial Workwear Servs.,*300 AD2d 279 [2002]). In opposition to Olympia’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the affidavit of a purported expert proffered by the plaintiff, since the plaintiff failed to identify the expert in pretrial disclosure, and served the affidavit after filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness attesting to the completion of discovery *(see Dawson v Cafiero,*292 AD2d 488, 489 [2002]; *Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth.,*262 AD2d 470 [1999]; *Mankowski v Two Park Co.,*225 AD2d 673 [1996]). In any event, the affidavit, which relied upon facts contradicted by the record, and which was speculative and conclusory, did not raise a triable issue of fact *(see Murphy v Conner,*84 NY2d 969, 972 [1994]; *Mestric v Martinez Cleaning Co.,*306 AD2d 449 [2003]; *Maggiotta v Walsh,*306 AD2d 447 [2003]).

We do not reach the plaintiffs remaining contention, which was raised for the first time on appeal *(see Gorenstein v Debralaurie Realty Co.,*280 AD2d 642 [2001]).

*519The Supreme Court thus properly granted Olympia’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANDREW STYLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-3334

[November 30, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Robert Panse, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2022CT008735ASB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6188 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, as the 

‘‘Nancy Yount Childs Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. FRY (for himself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. CLYBURN, Ms. MACE, and Mr. TIMMONS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, 

South Carolina, as the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NANCY YOUNT CHILDS POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 420 Highway 17 North in 

7 Surfside Beach, South Carolina, shall be known and desVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:10 Nov 14, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6188.IH H6188

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6188 IH

1 ignated as the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL v. Plaquemines Parish President, Amos CORMIER, III

NO. 2018-CC-0441

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.
Exhibit
32




Certification
of Pennsylvania Commerce Bancorp, Inc. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.




Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of Pennsylvania Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) does
hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A
for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), that:




·
            The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
  and




·
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
      respects, the Company’s financial condition and results of
      operations.









/s/
      Gary L. NalbandianGary
      L. Nalbandian,
              Chief Executive
      Officer

















/s/
      Mark A. ZodyMark
      A. Zody,
              Chief Financial
      Officer

















Dated:   April
30, 2009




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document.