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


 


	
  Number

  A-

  	
  Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of
  Delaware

  	
  Shares

  -0-

  Cusip No.

  53071M 10 4

  



 


LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION


 


Series A Liberty Interactive
Common Stock, par value $.01 per share


 


Specimen Certificate


 


This Certifies that                                                    
is the owner of                                                    
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF SERIES A LIBERTY INTERACTIVE COMMON
STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION (hereinafter
called the “Corporation”) transferable on the books of the Corporation by the
holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless
countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.


 


Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures
of its duly authorized officers.


 


Dated:


 


	
   

  	
  Liberty
  Media Corporation

  [Corporate Seal]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  President  

  	
   

  	
  Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          35,169
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     93,511
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,530
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,551
<LOANS>                                        622,655
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 800,068
<DEPOSITS>                                     696,571
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,075
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,050
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 800,068
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,042
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,452
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,494
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,568
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,687
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           19,807
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      658
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,165
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,959
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,959
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.60
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,312
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,129
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,150
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,388
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      444
<RECOVERIES>                                        96
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,698
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13666]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
[Public Notice 2822]


Determination Under the Arms Export Control Act

    Pursuant to Section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Acting Under Secretary of 
State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs and Director, 
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has made a determination 
pursuant to Section 81 of the Arms Export Control Act and has concluded 
that publication of the determination would be harmful to the national 
security of the United States.

    Dated: May 8, 1998.
Eric D. Newsom,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs.
[FR Doc. 98-13666 Filed 5-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-M
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



NovaStar Financial, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and its subsidiaries



| |  | NovaStar Assets Corporation, a Delaware corporation
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------



| |  | NovaStar Certificates Financing Corporation, a Delaware corporation
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | NovaStar Capital Access Corporation, a Delaware corporation
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------



| |  | NovaStar Financial Repurchase Corporation, a Delaware corporation
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | NFI Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



| | a. | NovaStar Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------



| | b. | Ampro Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------



| | c. | NovaStar Credit Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------



| | d. | NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and its subsidiaries
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 1. | NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation, a Delaware corporation
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation II, a Delaware corporation
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation III, a Delaware corporation
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | NovaStar REMIC Financing Corporation, a Delaware corporation
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5. | NMI Repurchase Corporation, a Delaware corporation
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------



| | 6. | NMI Repurchase Corporation II, a Delaware corporation
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------



| | e. | NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 1. | NovaStar Home Mortgage of South Carolina, Inc., a Delaware corporation
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 12-630.

#### Pigee *v.*Quigley, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

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 DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on        Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Venerando J.        Indelicato, Principal 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, 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. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

         

February 12, 2008

|   | /s/ Venerando J. Indelicato                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|        | Venerando J.                    Indelicato |
|        | Principal Financial Officer                |

         

 

 

 

23
From: "J. Rex Hewitt" <rexhewitt@petrogas.org>

To: Brenda Shine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/15/2010 10:16 AM

Subject: Re: Marine vessel loading control systems

S orry I did not get back with you sooner.

On your question about the crude oil, all the systems they are all able to recover propane+

vapors. They also can capture some of the methane and ethane. Crude oil, like diesel,

does not emit much vapors. The vapors it does emit can be captured. The methane and

ethane are normally flashed off at the well location so there there will not be much

flashing off of these at storage terminals.

The payout on the crude loading is much longer since it does not con tain much vapors.

On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Shine.Brenda@epamail.epa.gov wrote:

Rex,

Thanks again for talking with me earlier today.

I wanted to run my notes from our conversation back to you to make sure I accurately

captured our discussion, since we may be using this information in our upcoming risk and

technology review for the marine vessel loading rule.

You provided me with some equipment costs for refrigerated lean oil absorption syste ms

for typical loading rates.

These are as follows:

5,000 gallons/minute (typical loading rate for barges)

-- $ 650,000

15,000 gallons/minute (typical loading rate for ships)

- $1,200,000

If the systems are located within 2000 feet of water, additi onal safety systems that are

required by the U.S. Coast Guard could increase the costs at a minimum of $250,000 to a

doubling of the costs.

Since these are equipment costs, could you also estimate installation costs for these

systems?I asked about ope ration and maintenance costs

-- operating costs are limited to electricity,

and you estimated $0.006/gallon material loaded.

You also mentioned that vessel retrofits are typically no longer needed as most barges

and ships are already capture

- ready.

F or gasoline loading, and considering recovery credit, installation of one of these systems

can have a pay back period of 1 to 2 years.

The systems are able to meet state MVL loading requirements ranging from 1 to 30

mg/liter product loaded

-- or 99% of vapors recovered for typical gasoline blends. I

assume these systems can also be used to control vapors from crude oil loading as well.

Any information on the effectiveness of your system for crude oil loading would also be

useful.

Please let me know i f you have any comments, additional information, or any other

questions and thanks again for your time.

Brenda Shine

Environmental Engineer

US Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541

- 3608, Mail Drop E143

- 01
#### R.E.M. v. F.D.F. 61

02/01/2016

953 MAL (2015)

61

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied
No. 12-7028.

#### Vaksman *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7043.

#### Ayala-Lopez *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|No chart available.                                                                      
|No chart available.                                                                      
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      |        | 0      | 0      |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
2015-0435.

#### State v. Stepp.

Butler App. No. CA2013-12-226. On motion for order or relief. Motion denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(b)
 CORE MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.Herman F. Dick, Jr.Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer,
and 
Chief Financial Officer March 28, 2008 67
# L_2014253DE.01000401.xml

| 27.8.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 253/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 253/4

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 176/2010 der Kommission vom 2. März 2010 zur Änderung des Anhangs D der Richtlinie 92/65/EWG des Rates bezüglich Besamungsstationen und Samendepots, Embryo-Entnahmeeinheiten und Embryo-Erzeugungseinheiten, hinsichtlich der Anforderungen an Spenderpferde, Spenderschafe und Spenderziegen sowie der Bedingungen für den Umgang mit Sperma, Eizellen und Embryonen der betreffenden Tierarten

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 52 vom 3. März 2010
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 52 vom 3. März 2010

Auf Seite 19, im Anhang in Bezug auf Anhang D Kapitel I Abschnitt III Nr. 1.5 Buchstabe a der Richtlinie 92/65/EWG:

anstatt:

| „a) | einen Raum, in dem die Embryonen aufbereitet werden können und der getrennt von dem Bereich liegt, in dem sich die Spendertiere während der Samengewinnung aufhalten;“ |
| --- | --- |

„a)

einen Raum, in dem die Embryonen aufbereitet werden können und der getrennt von dem Bereich liegt, in dem sich die Spendertiere während der Samengewinnung aufhalten;“

muss es heißen:

| „a) | einen Raum, in dem die Embryonen aufbereitet werden können und der getrennt von dem Bereich liegt, in dem sich die Spendertiere während der Gewinnung aufhalten;“. |
| --- | --- |

„a)

einen Raum, in dem die Embryonen aufbereitet werden können und der getrennt von dem Bereich liegt, in dem sich die Spendertiere während der Gewinnung aufhalten;“.

---
#### Sealy, Matter of, v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1127

denied*
# 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 :

A1 9 A2 45 3 . BRENT LYNCH v . THE STATE.

In N o v em b er 2 0 1 3

, Bren t Ly

n ch p lead ed g u il t y to t h ree co u n ts o f h o m i ci d e by

v eh icl e, fet i ci d e b y

v eh i cl e, t hree co u n t s o f s eri o u s i n ju ry b y v eh icl e, p o s s es s i o n o f

m et h am p h et am i ne, t h r e e c o u n t s o f DUI, d ri vi ng o n t h e w ro n g s i d e, an d fai l u re to

m ai n t ai n l an e. In J an u ary 2 0 1 9

, Ly n ch fi l ed a m o t i o n i n arres t o f ju d g m en t

. Th e t ri al

co u rt den i ed t h e m o t i o n o n Ap ri l 1 5

, 2 0 1 9

, an d L y n ch fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap peal o n M ay

2 3 , 2 0 1 9 . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n

. A n o t i ce o f ap p e a l m

u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n 3 0 d a ys a f

t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e t r i al

co u rt ’ s o rd er. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro p er an d t i m el y fi l i n g o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal

i s an ab s ol u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ap p el l at e ju ri s d ict i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. R o wl a n d v.

S t a t e , 2 6 4 Ga. 8 7 2, 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 7 56 ) (1 99 5 ). Ly n ch ’ s n o t i ce o f ap p eal

, fi l ed

3 8 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e o rd er h e wi s h es t o ap peal

, was u n t i m el y

. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s

ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s di ct i o n

.

C 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 ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r 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 th 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

. September 06, 2019

09/06/2019
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Clay Givens v. All Pro Courts, LLC d/b/a Court Builder of Houston

and Christopher Walker

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00874

- CV

Trial cour t case number: 2010

- 01121

Trial court: 80 th Judicial District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: November 18, 2013

Party filing motion: Appell ant All Pro Courts, LLC d/b/a Court Builder of Houston

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justi ces Jennings

, Sharp, and Brown

.

Dat e: December 1 9 , 2013
No. 12-6596.

#### Ontiveros *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### People v Etheredge

1st Dept: 149 AD3d 446

denied*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO LOPEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73405

Agency No. A070-770-321

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 23, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Guillermo Delgado Lopez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his application for adjustment of

status and denying his motion to remand. We deny the petition. 

FILED

JUL 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. On appeal to the BIA, Lopez claimed for the first time that he was

“waved” into the United States at a port of entry, which would qualify as an

“inspect[ion] and admi[ssion]” for the purposes of adjustment of status under 8

U.S.C. § 1255(a). See Matter of Quilantan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 285, 293 (B.I.A.

2010). No evidence in the record supports this assertion. “[U]nsupported

assertions” by counsel are not evidence. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183,

188-89 n.6 (1984). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Lopez’s

motion to remand his case to immigration court for renewal of his application for

adjustment of status. 

2. Lopez also argues that his receipt of benefits under the Family Unity

Program (FUP), see Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 301, 104

Stat. 4978, 5029-30, constitutes an “inspect[ion] and admi[ssion]” under 8 U.S.C. §

1255(a). He relies primarily on our court’s decision in Garcia-Quintero v.

Gonzales that FUP beneficiaries are “admitted in any status” for the purposes of

cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. 455 F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.

2006). But our court’s recent decision of Medina-Nunez v. Lynch, No. 14-70657,

2015 WL 3540940, at *1 (9th Cir. June 8, 2015), acknowledged that we must defer

to the BIA’s published opinion in Matter of Reza-Murillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 296,

2
297 (B.I.A. 2010), which held that a grant of FUP benefits does not constitute an

“admission” for cancellation purposes. Because FUP beneficiaries are not

“admitted in any status” under Reza-Murillo, we are not convinced that they have

been “inspected and admitted” for the purposes of adjustment of status under 8

U.S.C. § 1255(a). 

PETITION DENIED.

3
#### Harper v. Salameh

07/19/2016

133 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 606