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



Exhibit 4.1


FC FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.

INCORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

AUTHORIZED SHARES $0.00001 PAR VALUE


	
NUMBER 
	

SHARES

CUSIP

See Reverse

For Certain Definitions





THIS CERTIFIES THAT


Is The Owner of

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF $0.00001 PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK OF


FC FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.


Transferable only on the books of the Company in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Company has caused this Certificate to be executed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the facsimile seal of the Company.


	
Dated:

	
 

	
_______________________
	

 
	

_________________________

	

Secretary
	

SEAL
	

President




 

 

 

 






FC FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.


TRANSFER FEE: $20.00 PER NEW CERTIFICATE ISSUED


The following abbreviations when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable law or regulations:


TEN COM - as tenants in common

TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties

JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common

UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - __________ Custodian ___________ (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act ____________ (State)


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


For Value Received, _________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto _______________ (Please insert Social Security or other identifying number of Assignee). 

_________________________________________________________________

(Please print or typewrite name and address, including zip code of Assignee)

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________ Shares of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _______________________ attorney-in-fact to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises.


Dated: _________________



 _____________________________________________

Notice: The signatures 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 whatsoever.










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.


 

 

 

 

-2-
Virginia BADEN and Joanna Baden, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Gregory J. PORGES, Esq., Porges, Hamlin, Knowles & Hawk, P.A., Jason M. DePaola, Esq., Robert M. Elliott, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1639

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Tiofila SANTILLANA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10280.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Biosimilares y productos

biológicos originales

Los mismos beneficios

Los mismos posibles 

efectos secundarios

La misma concentración 

y dosis

Se administran de la 

misma manera

La mayoría de los medicamentos biológicos tienen pequeñas 

diferencias entre los lotes porque generalmente están 

elaborados de fuentes vivas (tales como células animales, 

bacterias o levaduras). Los productos biológicos se elaboran 

haciendo uso de los avances de la ciencia y por lo general, 

se administran por inyección.

Los biosimilares son medicamentos aprobados por la FDA 

que son muy similares, pero no idénticos, a otro medicamento: 

al producto biológico original ya aprobado por la FDA.

Los biosimilares son un tipo de 

medicamento biológico seguro y 

eficaz para el tratamiento de 

muchas enfermedades, tales 

como las enfermedades 

cutáneas e intestinales 

crónicas, la artritis, la diabetes, 

las afecciones renales, la 

degeneración macular 

y algunos cánceres.

Un producto biosimilar y su biológico 

original están elaborados del mismo 

tipo de fuente y tienen los mismos 

riesgos y beneficios de tratamiento.

Para obtener más información, visite

www.FDA.gov/biosimilars

Más opciones Costos más bajos

Biosimilares Genéricos

Generalmente elaborados de 

fuentes vivas

Requieren un proceso 

especializado de producción

Muy similares, pero no idénticos, a 

los productos biológicos originales

Por lo general, menos costosos 

que los biológicos originales

Por lo general, elaborados de 

productos químicos

Tienen un proceso más sencillo 

para copiar

Copia de medicamentos de marca

Por lo general, menos costosos 

que los medicamentos de marca

Conceptos básicos sobre los biosimilares

Los biosimilares pueden ser elaborados por varias 

empresas, lo cual puede reducir su costo — similar a los 

medicamentos genéricos. Los biosimilares son como los 

genéricos en algunos aspectos, pero diferentes en otros.

Los biosimilares están aprobados por la FDA después de 

una revisión minuciosa de los datos, estudios y pruebas 

que llevan a cabo las empresas.

La FDA monitorea la 

seguridad y eficacia de 

todos los medicamentos 

después de su aprobación. Verifica la calidad del 

medicamento durante 

la producción

Revisa los reportes 

de seguridad de los 

pacientes

Los biosimilares podrían 

proporcionar a los pacientes 

más acceso a tratamientos 

importantes y una oportunidad 

de ahorrar dinero.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER REQUIRING

RESPONSE DECLARATIONS

By SEPTEMBER 18 AT NOON, each side shall respond under oath to the other side’s

declaration filed today (Dkt. Nos. 1586, 1589) on a sentence-by-sentence basis, first quoting the

sentence and then stating the full extent to which the declarant admits its truth, as well as any

contrary or mitigating circumstance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michael HARVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3385

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
William Patrick RUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-187

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Enrique Parra DUENAS, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8379.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Sukit KUMVACHIRAPITAG, petitioner, v. Bill GATES, et al.

No. 12-9474.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jonathan JOHNSTON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8661.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, denied.
Asieba Imadjam THOMAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9086.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David T. Mitchell, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fabrinet for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Fabrinet.



|                      |  |  |  |       |  |                   |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | ----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  |       |  | By:               |  | /s/ DAVID T. MITCHELL                                         
|Date: August 31, 2011 |  |  |  | Name: |  | David T. Mitchell
|                      |  |  |  |       |  | Title:            |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|                      |  |  |  |       |  |                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                                 

I, Mark J. Schwartz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fabrinet for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Fabrinet.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                  |  |                              
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | By:                                                              |  | /s/ MARK J. SCHWARTZ         
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Name:                                                            |  | Mark J. Schwartz             
|Date: August 31, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Title:                                                           |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Mark CURCIO, et al., petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 12-1085.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1373 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1373

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide leave for members of 
  the Armed Forces in connection with adoptions of children, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

Mr. Cardoza (for himself and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide leave for members of 
  the Armed Forces in connection with adoptions of children, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADOPTION LEAVE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES ADOPTING 
              CHILDREN.

    (a) Authority.--Section 701 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, 
a member of the armed forces adopting a child in a qualifying child 
adoption is entitled to 21 days of leave to be used in connection with 
the adoption.
    ``(2) For the purpose of this subsection, an adoption of a child by 
a member is a qualifying child adoption if the member is eligible for 
reimbursement of qualified adoption expenses for such adoption under 
section 1052 of this title.
    ``(3) In the event that two members of the armed forces who are 
spouses of each other adopt a child in a qualifying child adoption, 
only one such member shall be entitled to leave under this subsection. 
Such members shall elect which such member shall be entitled to such 
leave.
    ``(4) Leave under paragraph (1) is in addition to other leave 
provided under other provisions of this section.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (i) of section 701 of title 10, 
United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall take effect on 
October 1, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
Один неверный шаг может сделать пищу 

смертельно опасной

Защищайте людей пНикогда не хранитесырое мясо, птицу иморепродукты повеготовых к употреблепродуктов.
In re Steven A. McLEOD, petitioner.

No. 12-9273.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1285 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To extend for 3 years changes to requirements for admission 

of nonimmigrant nurses in health professional shortage 

areas made by the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged 

Areas Act of 1999. 

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


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

HR 1285 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nursing Relief for Dis3 advantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. 3-YEAR EXTENSION FOR CHANGES TO REQUIRE5 MENTS FOR ADMISSION OF NONIMMIGRANT 

6 NURSES IN HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORT7 AGE AREAS. 

8 Section 2 of the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged 

9 Areas Act of 1999 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note) is amended— 

10 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘4- 

11 YEAR’’ and inserting ‘‘SPECIFIED’’; and 

12 (2) by amending subsection (e) to read as fol13 lows: 

14 ‘‘(e) LIMITING APPLICATION OF NONIMMIGRANT

15 CHANGES TO SPECIFIED PERIOD.—The amendments 

16 made by this section shall apply to classification petitions 

17 filed for nonimmigrant status only during the period— 

18 ‘‘(1) beginning on the date that interim or final 

19 regulations are first promulgated under subsection 

20 (d); and 

21 ‘‘(2) ending on the date that is 3 years after 

22 the date of the enactment of the Nursing Relief for 

23 Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005.’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

HR 1285 RFS 

1 SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 

2 ACT. 

3 The requirements of chapter 5 of title 5, United 

4 States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Administrative 

5 Procedure Act’’ ) or any other law relating to rulemaking, 

6 information collection or publication in the Federal Reg7 ister, shall not apply to any action to implement the 

8 amendments made by section 2 to the extent the Secretary 

9 Homeland of Security, the Secretary of Labor, or the Sec10 retary of Health and Human Services determines that 

11 compliance with any such requirement would impede the 

12 expeditious implementation of such amendments. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 20, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
September 30, 2002 (the Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Susan
K. Rosburg, the trust officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of
the Trust, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:




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

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Trust.

| |                                                                                           | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Susan K. RosburgSusan K. Rosburg
Trust Officer
U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee | 




Date:November 21, 2002






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Trust for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR CLARIFICATION OF

JUDGE CORLEY’S ORDER

Incidental to their motion for relief from Judge Corley’s order granting plaintiff Waymo

LLC’s motion to compel, defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC asked for

clarification that, while Judge Corley’s order requires production of Stroz Friedberg’s due

diligence report at this time, its rationale as to the “common interest” or “joint defense”

exception is not necessarily dispositive of privilege assertions over other communications,

separate and apart from the due diligence report, that occurred after April 11, 2016 (see Dkt.

No. 575 at 5). This request does not bear on production of the due diligence report and should

be directed first to Judge Corley, who remains in the best position to evaluate it, per her recent

instructions regarding Uber’s privilege log (see Dkt. No. 670 at 7–8). This order therefore

DENIES the request without prejudice to its renewal before Judge Corley.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 686 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 1
Robert MONTGOMERY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10194.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit FF 

Redacted Version of 

Document Filed 

Provisionally Under 

Seal 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 241-35 Filed 10/03/18 Page 1 of 1
Steven Mitchell DIVER, petitioner, v. Lewis SMITH, Administrator, Albemarle Correctional Institution.

No. 12-8638.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1400 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming 

laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. KELLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties 

for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Aircraft 

5 Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER 

7 AT AN AIRCRAFT. 

8 (a) OFFENSE.—Chapter 2 of title 18, United States 

9 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
2 

•HR 1400 IH 

1 ‘‘§ 39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft 

2 ‘‘Whoever knowingly aims a laser pointer at an air3 craft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United 

4 States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be 

5 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 

6 or both.’’. 

7 (b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The 

8 table of sections at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 18, 

9 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new item: 

‘‘39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.’’. 

Æ
Dorothy RAGAB, petitioner, v. Rose I. FLYNN.

No. 12-8455.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.
EX PARTE A.A., individually and on behalf of A.S.A-C., a minor

(In re: The matter of A.S.A-C., a minor)

2170336

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 8, 2018

Mand. pet. denied.
Noah Hancock SIMMONS, petitioner, v. A. Gail PRUDENTI, et al.

No. 12-8179.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the
Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Trust. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
SABINE ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: November 8, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.