alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4


Exhibit 4

[FRONT OF CERTIFICATE]





  			
	NUMBER

    	 	SHARES

    




GOLDCORP HOLDINGS CO.

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE.





  			
	PAR VALUE: $0.0001 

    COMMON STOCK

    	 	CUSIP NO. 380769 10 9

    







THIS CERTIFIES THAT __________________________________ is the owner of
_________________ fully paid and non-assessable shares of the common stock par value of $0.0001 each of GOLDCORP HOLDINGS CO.
transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 




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





  			
	 	 	Dated:___________________

    
	 	 	 
	CEO & PRESIDENT

    	 	COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED

    
	SECRETARY 

    	 	SIGNATURE STOCK TRANSFER, INC.

    (Plano, Texas) Transfer Agent

    
	 	 	By

    
	 	 	 
	 	[SEAL]

    	AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

    









[BACK OF CERTIFICATE]




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 the applicable laws or regulations.  





  				
	TEN COM

    	-- as tenants in common

    	UNIF GIFT MIN (TRANS) ACT

    	 ________ Custodian __________ 

        (Cust)                         (Minor)

    
	TEN ENT

    	-- as tenants by the entireties

    	(UGMA) (UTMA)

    	 
	JT TEN

    	-- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and 

    	 	under Uniform Gifts (Transfers) to Minors Act _________  (State)

    
	 	not as tenants in common

    	 	 
	 	Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the list

    








  				
	 	 
	For value received _________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

    
	Please insert social security or some other

    identifying number of assignee

    	 
	


    	 
	 
	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE

    
	


    
	


    
	Shares

    
	of the Capital Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

    
	 
	Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

    
	 
	Dated:_______________

    
	 	X

    
	 	 	


    
	SIGNATURE GUARANTEE 

    (BY BANK, BROKER, CORPORATE OFFICER)

    	 	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS AGREEMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
Case: 1:02-cv-08853 Document #: 4 Filed: 01/21/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4907

_____________________________

ANTHONY BAKER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County.

Terry P. Lewis, Judge.

January 14, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

 
2

Anthony Baker, pro se, Appellant.

Beverly S. Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Florida 

Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EX-10.20






Exhibit 10.20








Compensation Program

for Nonemployee Directors







	a.	 	Each director shall be paid an annual retainer of $60,000 for serving as a member of the
Board of Directors and any Board Committee(s), which retainer shall be payable in quarterly
installments at the end of each quarter. Payment of this retainer may be deferred under the
Deferred Compensation Program for Directors.
	 
	b.	 	Each director who serves as the Chairman of a Board Committee shall be paid an additional
annual retainer of $15,000, which retainer shall be payable in quarterly installments.
	 
	c.	 	The presiding director shall receive an additional annual retainer of $15,000.
	 
	d.	 	Each director shall be paid a meeting fee of $2,000 per Board or
Committee meeting attended.*/
	 
	e.	 	Deferred stock units with a targeted dollar value of $100,000 shall be
credited to each director’s Air Products Stock Account under the
Deferred Compensation Program for Directors (i) effective as of the
date the director first serves on the Board, and (ii) annually,
notwithstanding the date of first service, for directors continuing in
office after the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, effective as of the
day of the Annual Meeting. The number of units to be credited will be
determined based on the Fair Market Value of a




 









 






	 	 	share of common stock of the Company as determined under the Program on the
date credited, rounded up to the nearest whole share unit.






	f.	 	Directors shall be reimbursed for out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in attending regular and special
meetings of the Board and Board Committees and any
other business function of the Company at the request
of the Chairman of the Board. Expenses will be
reimbursed as submitted.**/







 




			
	*/	 	For purposes of administering these provisions, a director will be
considered to have attended any meeting for which he or she was present in person or by secure
telephone conference call for substantially all of the meeting, as determined by the Corporate
Secretary. Members of the Audit Committee who participate with management and/or the
independent auditors to review such things as quarterly earnings releases and registration
statements as required by law or listing standard will also receive the meeting fee.
Directors who meet with a constituent or other third party on behalf of the Company and at the
request of the Chief Executive Officer will also receive the meeting fee.
	 
	**/	 	Directors are reimbursed at the rate of $.585 per mile (effective 07/01/08)
or such rate as is published by the Internal Revenue Service for use of their personal cars in
connection with Company business. Directors using personal aircraft or private carrier will
be reimbursed for such expenses at a rate equivalent to first-class air fare of scheduled
carriers.






G-1
# FILED
September 25, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON

ANTONIO SWEATT , ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9805-CC-00132 ) vs. ) LAKE COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. 98-7778 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon motion of the state to affirm the judgment of the trial court pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the C ourt of Criminal Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the trial court’s denia l of the petitioner’s petiti on for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of aggravated rape in 1990 and received an effective 25 year sentence. No appeal was taken. In his pres ent petition, the petitioner cl aims that he was induced to p lead guilty by a mi srepresentation of the extent of his sentence and that h is sentence has expired. Specifically, the petitioner claims he w

as informed that he would be rel eased from prison after servi ng 30% of his effective sentence because he was sentenced as a Range I offender.

Habeas corpus relief is available in Tennessee only when “it appears upon the face of the judgment or t he record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered” t hat a convicting court w

as without jurisdic

tion or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s s entence of imprisonment or other restr aint has expired. Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). Since the challeng e to the guilty plea in this case woul d necessarily inv olve investigati on beyond the face of the judgment or record, the tr ial court properly denied habeas corpus relief. See id. Moreover, the judgment c learly reflects that the

petitioner received an effective 25 year sentence in 1990; this sentence has not expired. The pe titioner is eligible for parole after serving 30% of his s entence; parole, however , is not guaranteed.2 In his brief on appeal, the petitioner contends tha t the trial court should have treated the petition as one for post-conviction r elief. See T.C.A. § 40-30-205(c). This contention is without merit. A petition for post- conviction relief must be filed with the court in which the conviction occurred. T.C.A. § 40-30-204(a). Judgment in this case was rendered in D avidson County, how ever, this petition w

as filed in Lake County. Furthermore, judgment in this case became final on Decem ber 13, 1990, and this petition was file d on March 26, 19 98. Accordingly, th e statute of li mitations fo r filing a petition for post-conviction relief had expired. T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a ). The petitioner’s claim that the statute did not begin to run until he was denied release on pa role is without merit. See Cox v. State , No. 02C0 1-9508- CR-00221 (Tenn. Cr im. App. , May, 30, 1997).
Accordingly, for the r easons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that t he state’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is af firmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

_________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

_________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUD GE

_________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E
EXHIBIT 99.4

                         EARTHWORKS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

     Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, William H. Campbell, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
("principal financial officer") of Earthworks Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004 of the
Registrant (the "Report"):

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


Dated: December 30, 2004                   /s/ WILLIAM H. CAMPBELL
                                           -----------------------
                                           William H. Campbell
                                           Executive Vice President,
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Peter Maloney, Chief Financial Officer of Keynote Systems, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2005 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 9, 2005



|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Peter Maloney                                                                                            
|Peter Maloney Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Keynote Systems, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 10.25**

 

**OYO Geospace Corporation**

**FY 2006 Bonus Program**

 

The FY 2006 bonusprogram is comprised of three different bonus pools, or “Tiers”. No bonuses are earned until after the company earns a 5% return on its Shareholder Equity, which allows the company to earn a minimum pretax profit of $3.13 million beforeany bonus accruals begin. 

 

***Tier 1 Program***:  TheTier 1 bonus pool is a company-wide “profit sharing.” The Tier 1 program allows every employee in the company (except our Russian employees which are rewarded under a small local plan) to proportionally share in the company’s profitsbased on each employee’s relative payroll. The Tier 1 program focuses each employee toward maximizing the company’s profits, improving the company’s cohesiveness and morale. The Tier 1 bonus pool will be established by accruing 30% ofconsolidated pretax profits (before bonus) exceeding $3.13 million and up to $6.5 million. This bonus pool is capped at $1.0 million. 

 

***Tier 2 Program***:  The Tier 2 program is comprised of 46 named employees. This program begins only after the Tier 1 program is fully funded.Therefore, the Tier 2 bonus pool will be built by accruing 30% of consolidated pretax profits (before bonus) exceeding $6.5 million and up to $11.5 million, resulting in a bonus pool of $1.5 million. The Tier 2 bonus program covers employees infive different groups: seismic exploration, seismic reservoir, offshore cables, thermal solutions and a general support group. Each group has predefined goals to achieve in FY 2006 in order to earn a bonus in the Tier 2 program. If certain goals arenot met, upon approval from the Compensation Committee, the unearned portions will be distributed on a discretionary basis. 

 

***Tier 3 Program***:  There are three senior executive officers in the Tier 3 program. This program begins only after the Tier 1 and Tier 2programs are fully funded. Therefore, the Tier 3 bonus pool will be established by accruing 30% of consolidated pretax profits (before bonus) exceeding $11.5 million and up to $13.0 million. If the company achieves pretax profits of $13.0 million, abonus pool of $450,000 will be created with each senior officer earning a bonus of $150,000 if the maximum limit were achieved.
Case: 1:03-cv-05207 Document #: 1019 Filed: 09/27/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:18650
Case: 1:03-cv-05207 Document #: 1019 Filed: 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:18651
#### In the Matter of Anthony De’Vere, Appellant, v Theodore Reid, as Warden, New York Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent to give him permission to marry, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated October 12, 1983, which dismissed his petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner, an inmate at Fishkill Correctional Facility, serving an indeterminate prison sentence of three years to life, commenced the instant article 78 proceeding for a judgment permitting him to be married as soon as possible. Special Term properly dismissed the petition due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies *(see, Matter of Patterson v Smith,*53 NY2d 98; *Matter of Hall v LeFevre,*84 AD2d 622).

In any event, we note that, pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 79-a (1), the Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional Facility properly denied petitioner’s application to marry. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, it is well settled that the prohibition against marriage contained in Civil Rights Law § 79-a for those who *812have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment is neither a denial of equal protection of the laws nor cruel and unusual punishment *(see, Matter of Fitzpatrick v Smith,*90 AD2d 974, *affd*59 NY2d 916, on mem at App Div, *cert denied*464 US 963, 104 S Ct 300; *Johnson v Rockefeller,*365 F Supp 377, *affd sub nom. Butler v Wilson,*415 US 953; *Fuchs v Fuchs,*104 Misc 2d 1143; *Muessman v Ward,*95 Misc 2d 478). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
# C_2019187EN.01008201.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/82

---

Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Zubedi v Council

(Case T-186/19)

(2019/C 187/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Zubedi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M. Lester, QC and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Council implementing decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (1) and Council implementing regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council implementing decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (1) and Council implementing regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

| — | order the defendant to pay costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in its assessment by including the applicant in the European Union’s restrictive measures concerning Syria.

The applicant has been included by the Council implementing decision (CFSP) 2019/87 and Council implementing regulation (EU) 2019/85 on the basis that he is one of a group of successful businessman in Syria, who are all said by the defendant, to be making large profits from and supporting the regime of President Assad by forming partnerships with State backed companies to develop land expropriated from people displaced by the conflict in Syria. This would be completely untrue in respect of the applicant, the criteria for inclusion would have not been fulfilled and the defendant’s case would have been based on an insufficiently solid basis.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 181, 21.1.2019, p. 13).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 181, 21.1.2019, p. 4).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,014
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,586
<PP&E>                                         141,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,751
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,359
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,030
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,613
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,637
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,456
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.41


</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:20
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:21
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:22
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:23
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:24
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:25
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:26
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:27
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:28
Case: 1:02-cv-08910 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/10/03 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:29
### NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 402

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.D.

, MINOR CHILD

On appeal from the 377th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas

.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. The second amended

notice of appeal of S.G. was filed on September 29 , 2020

, and a ppellant’s brief was due

October 19 , 2020. Appellant S.G. has filed a n amended motion for extension of time

,

providing the reason for her request therein. Appellant seek s thirty days of additional time

to file the brief.

Appeals in parental termination an d child protection cases are governed by the

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited2 deadlines and procedures. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4; T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a). The

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that

appeals in such cases are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the

notice of appeal is filed. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a). Accordingly

, it is the policy of this

Court to limit e xtensions of time in such cases absent truly extraordinary circumstances.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

W e GRANT IN PART appellant S.G. .’s amended motion for extension of time and

ORDER appellant’s brief to be filed on or before November 9, 2020 . No further extensions

of time will be granted absent truly exigent and extraordinary circumstances.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

2 3 rd day of October , 20 20

.