alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1




 


AMENDMENT NO. 1




dated as of



March 4, 2011



to



SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION RIGHTS AGREEMENT



between



THE ST. JOE COMPANY



and



AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC,



as Rights Agent








 


 









 





AMENDMENT NO. 1




to



SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION RIGHTS AGREEMENT



     Amendment No. 1, dated as of March 4, 2011, (this “Amendment”) to the SHAREHOLDER
PROTECTION RIGHTS AGREEMENT, dated as of February 15, 2011, between The St. Joe Company, a Florida
corporation (the “Company”), and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, a New York
limited liability trust company, as Rights Agent (the “Rights Agent).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.5 of the Agreement, the Company and the Rights Agent may amend
the Agreement in any respect without the approval of any holders of Rights prior to the Flip-In
Date (as defined in the Agreement);



     WHEREAS, the Flip-In Date has not occurred;



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereby agree to amend the
definition of Expiration Date as follows:



          “Expiration Date” shall mean March 4, 2011.







 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed as of the date first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE ST. JOE COMPANY 

 	 
	 	By:  	
/s/ Bruce R. Berkowitz
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Bruce R. Berkowitz 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chairman of the Board 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	

AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST 

COMPANY, LLC

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Karishma P. Kadian
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Karishma P. Kadian 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Counsel
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



In connection with the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB to be filed
with the Washington, D.C. Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, we hereby consent to the use of our report dated February 4, 2000 related to the financial statements of Entropin, Inc. for the period from inception through December
31, 1999.





|                 |  |  |  |                                  
|---------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  |                                  
|                 |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | /s/    CAUSEY DEMGEN & MOORE
INC.
|Denver, Colorado |  |  |  | CAUSEY DEMGEN & MOORE INC.       
|March 25, 2004   |  |  |  |
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 Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report") of FMS Financial Corporation (the "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, we, Craig
W. Yates,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Channing L. Smith,  Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                        <C>
/s/Craig W. Yates                            /s/Channing L. Smith
-------------------------------------        ------------------------------------------
Craig W. Yates                               Channing L. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
</TABLE>



March 30, 2006
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF BEHRE DOLBEAR & COMPANY (USA)

As independent geological consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our report (and to all references to our firm, including being
named as experts) in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Uranium Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 and to the incorporation by reference of such
report in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-151134) and on Form S-8 (Registration
Nos. 333-156433 and 333-119661) of Uranium Resources, Inc.

BEHRE
DOLBEAR & COMPANY (USA)

Denver,
Colorado
March 11, 2009

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 99.02

ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A.


MBNA MASTER CREDIT CARD TRUST II


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of MBNA
America Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), as Servicer pursuant to the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of August 4, 1994 (the "Pooling and
Servicing Agreement") by and between the Bank and The Bank of New York,
as trustee, (the "Trustee") does hereby certify that:

         1.  The Bank is Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement.

         2.  The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this
Certificate to the Trustee.

         3.  This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.05 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

         4.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the
twelve-month period ended June 30, 2000 was conducted under my
supervision.

         5.  Based on such review, the Servicer has, to my knowledge,
fully performed all its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement throughout such twelve-month period except as set forth in
paragraph 6 below, as previously disclosed in the Annual Servicer's
Certificate of August 1999.  No material default in the performance of
such obligations has occurred or is continuing.

         6.  On August 1, 1999, financing statement 9410483, relating to
the grant of security for interchange and proceeds for Series 1994-A and
the grant of a security interest to the Master Credit Card Trust II (the
"Master Trust") for the original accounts and receivables, lapsed
without being renewed.  On August 16, 1999, financing statement 9411277,
relating to the grant of security for interchange and proceeds for
Series 1994-B lapsed without being renewed.  This was discovered on
August 27, 1999, during the due diligence process to deliver the annual
Servicer's Certificate as required by the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement.  The lien and grant of security interest was reestablished on
August 30, 1999 with additional filings, securing the accounts and
receivables for the Master Trust.  The Master Trust currently has a
first priority perfected security interest in the accounts and
receivables in the Master Trust and for the interchange and proceeds, as
evidenced by the UCC records.  The Servicer and the Issuer have added
additional review procedures and will engage outside counsel to monitor
the UCC records relating to the Master Trust to prevent any future lapse
of a filing statement for an active series or for the Master Trust.





         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 28th day of August 2000.



 						/s/ Jack Fioravanti
						Name:    Jack Fioravanti
						Title:      Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000839439
<NAME>                        Omega Development, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         39,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (39,708)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          48,323
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (63,323)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,409)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,409)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7541

PHILLIP S. WOHLFORD; KEVIN M. BALLANCE,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

MELVIN DAVIS; C. CRUMPLER; MARION; NAFF; ZOOK; MAYO; SIMS; 

EVANS; JOHN DOE/SPENCER; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Operational Correction 

Manager; HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the VADOC,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:18-cv-00224-GEC-PMS)

Submitted: August 31, 2020 Decided: September 16, 2020

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip S. Wohlford, Kevin M. Ballance, Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin M. Ballance and Philip S. Wohlford seek to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing some of their claims and severing and transferring the remainder to a different 

venue. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not 

timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered the challenged order on March 20, 2019. Ballance filed

the notice of appeal on October 15, 2019. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) 

(holding that prisoner’s legal materials are deemed filed date they are deposited with prison 

officials for mailing). Because Ballance and Wohlford failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.*

 

We further deny their motions for an evidentiary hearing, injunctive relief pending appeal, 

* To the extent that Ballance claims he filed a motion for reconsideration on 

April 18, 2019, that motion would not have tolled the time to file an appeal because it 

would have been filed 29 days after the district court’s order was entered. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) (tolling appeal period if party filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion within 28 

days); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (providing 28 days to file motion to alter or amend 

judgment); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n untimely 

Rule 59 motion does not defer the time for filing an appeal”). 
3

and to compel discovery. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### William Carlton, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, a Florida Corporation, and the Pullman Company, a Corporation, *Defendants in Error.*

Division B.

*Mitchell D. Price, Robert J. Boone*and *Price, Price, Neeley & Kehoe,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Loftin, Stokes & Calkins, Robert H. Anderson*and *John E. & Julian Hartridge,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

The amended declaration herein does not wholly fail to state a cause of action, therefore, the demurrer thereto should have been overruled. Wertz v. Tampa Electric Co., 78 Fla. 405, 83 South. Rep. 270; Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co., 83 Fla. 29, 90 South. Rep. 621; Pero v. Corley, 87 Fla. 448, 100 South. Rep. 748; Foster v. St. Johns Electric Co., 86 Fla. 338, 98 South. Rep. 75; McDonald v. Exchange Supply Co., 88 Fla. 80, 101 South. Rep. 28; Cummings Mach. Works v. Clark, 89 Fla. 383, 105 South. Rep. 100; Hawkins v. Shore Acres Properties, 93 *597Fla. 670, 112 South. Rep. 61; Yon v. Pinellas County Power Co., 93 Fla. 503, 112 South Rep. 50.

The judgment rendered on the demurrer is reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Brown, J., disqualified.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 38 (Friday, February 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4258]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the 
Alabama Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Wednesday, 
April 29, 2009 at 9 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 5 p.m. at Troy 
University Montgomery Whitley Conference Hall. The purpose of the 
meeting is to conduct a community forum on the ``Civil Rights 
Implications of Alabama's Eminent Domain Policies and Practices.''
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to e-mail their 
comments, or to present their comments at the meeting, or who desire 
additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, Regional 
Director, Central Regional Office, at (913) 551-1400 or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e5f1ece1eaedf0ecedc3f6f0e0e0f1ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9afce8f5f8f3f4e9f5f4daefe9f9f9e8b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, February 24, 2009.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E9-4258 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P. AS
OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          41,219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,255
<PP&E>                                         716,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 720,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,075
<BONDS>                                        355,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     270,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   720,854
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,677
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,712
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,367
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.04
        

</TABLE>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00187

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 048

- 311333

- 19
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, J J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### S HAWN 

### T URNER A 

### / K 

### / A 

### S HAWN 

### D AVID 

### T URNER A 

### / K 

### / A 

### S HAWN 

### D. T URNER AND 

### V ERONICA 

### T URNER 

### , Appellants

V



### . A LAM O 

### T ITLE 

### I NSURANCE 

### C OMPANY 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On September 3, 2020, we notified appellant s that the trial

- court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellant s have not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant s arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and provided us w ith proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b),
44.3

. Because appellant s have not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Appellant s m ust pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.
Per Curiam
Delivered : October 1, 2020
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6614

JOSEPH RIDDICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Warden, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION at Beckley, WV; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-899-2) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Riddick appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Riddick v. Conley , No. CA-01-899-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 1, 2002; entered Apr. 2, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128672 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128672 

 COA: 258799 

Saginaw CC: 01-020393-FC 

MANUEL VICTOR GONZALES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 6, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
#### Walter Holmberg, Appellant, v Sheriff’s Office, County of Orange, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 607]

In an action to recover damages for violations of 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated September 29, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his motion to serve an amended complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered November 5, 1999, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an official policy or custom that caused him to be subjected to the denial of his constitutional rights *(see, Monell v Department of Social Servs.,*436 US 658; *Mann v Alvarez,*242 AD2d 318; *Jackson v Police Dept.,*192 AD2d 641, *cert denied*511 US 1004; *Sagendorf-Teal v County of Rensselaer,*100 F3d 270).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.